Loading...
CC - Item 8A - General Plan Amendment 09-01ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 13, 2010 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09-01 SUMMARY The City of Rosemead proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to designate four key areas (nodes) in the City for mixed-use development with limitations on both residential density and building height. The current General Plan allows for mixed-use development along all major commercial corridors in the City. If the proposed amendment is approved by the City Council, the majority of all existing portions of the City that are currently designated for mixed-use development would change to their prior land use designation as stated in the 1987 General Plan. The General Plan Amendment also proposes to create a new High Intensity Commercial land use designation over two commercial areas of the City. The proposed High Intensity Commercial land use designation would affect the following properties: 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, 7867, 7907, 7913, 7919, 7931, and 8001 Garvey Avenue, 3011 and 3033 Denton Avenue, and 7938 Virginia Street. Lastly, the Circulation element will be. modified to address the proposed land use changes, and the Resource Management and Public Safety Elements will be revised to comply with Assembly Bill 162. Attached is a map (Exhibit A), which highlights the properties that will be affected by this General Plan Amendment. The Draft General Plan document is referenced in the CC Resolution No. 2010-23, and has been labeled Attachment "A." On March 1, 2010, the Planning Commission was presented with this matter and adopted Resolution No. 10-03 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 09- 01 to the City Council. The Planning Commission staff report, Resolution No. 10-03, and meeting minutes have been attached to this report (Exhibits "B" through "D" respectively). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2010-23 (Exhibit E), considering an Addendum (Exhibit F) to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Rosemead General ITEM NO* eA City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 2 of 7 Plan, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, APPROVING General Plan Amendment 09-01. BACKGROUND On April 14, 2009, the City Council appointed a Subcommittee to discuss the future of mixed-use development in the City of Rosemead. The Subcommittee was to analyze the current 2008 General Plan and make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council as to whether the Land Use Element should be amended. On September 22, 2009, a joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting was held to review the Subcommittee's recommendation. At that meeting, staff received direction to embark on a comprehensive General Plan Work Revision Program. This program included, amending the General Plan to address mixed-use development, preparing mixed-use development standards, amending the existing mixed-use design guidelines, and processing a comprehensive Zoning Map update. During the process of completing the General Plan Work Revision Program, the sale of two large properties in the City, the former "Auto Auction" and "Barr Lumber" sites (8001 Garvey Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, and 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue), prompted staff to reorganize the General Plan Amendment. The "Auto Auction" and "Barr Lumber" sites total approximately 18.9 acres of land, and have the potential of providing opportunity for a variety of tax generating commercial uses. The written staff report that was prepared for the Planning Commission meeting on March 1, 2010, originally proposed a Specific Plan land use designation on these properties. However, staff modified the recommendation to designate the two sites as High Intensity Commercial instead of a Specific Plan land use designation during the Planning Commission meeting to ensure that some level of development could occur "of right" on those sites without needing a further discretionary approval. The Planning Commission conducted the duly noticed public hearing. Upon hearing all testimonies from the public, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of General Plan Amendment 09-01 to the City Council. ANALYSIS The following section will cover all the aspects of the General Plan Amendment in greater detail. Land Use Element As mentioned earlier in this report, General Plan Amendment 09-01 proposes to amend the Land Use Element to designate four key areas (nodes) in the City for mixed-use development with limitations on both residential density and building height, as well as the creation of a new High Intensity Commercial land use designation over two commercial areas of the City. The following is a description of the proposed mixed-use nodes. Exhibit A illustrates their locations. City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 3 of 7 Mixed-Use Area One would include a portion of the City's downtown, consisting of several parcels on the north and south side of Valley Boulevard, between Muscatel Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard. Several parcels on the south side of Bentel Avenue, near Ivar Avenue, would also be included in this area. This district would limit development to 25-30 residential units per acre and building height to three stories. Mixed-Use Area Two would be located at the northeast end of the City, at the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Temple City Boulevard, and would include all parcels on north side of Valley Boulevard to Abilene Street. This district would limit development to 40-60 residential units per acre and building height to four stories. Mixed-Use Area Three would be located along the north and south side Garvey Avenue between Charlotte Avenue and Willard Avenue. This district would limit development to 25-30 residential units per acre and building height to three stories. Mixed-Use Area Four would be located on the east end of Garvey Avenue, and include parcels between Stingle Avenue and the Rio Hondo River. This district would limit development to 40-60 residential units per acre and building height to four stories. High Intensity Commercial Land Use Designation General Plan Amendment 09-01 further proposes to create a new High Intensity Commercial land use designation over two important commercial areas of the City, the former "Auto Auction" and "Barr Lumber" sites (8001 Garvey Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, and 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue). The Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Map(s) (Exhibit G) have been attached to further identify the location of the subject properties. This new land use designation provides up to 270,000 square feet of potential commercial retail and restaurant-related uses and consists of approximately 18.9 acres within the following two project areas: Project Area 1 "Auto Auction Site": This area consists of 10 parcels of land totaling approximately 15.6 acres, located on the north side Garvey Avenue between Del Mar Avenue and San Gabriel Avenue. This site is bounded by Garvey Avenue to the south, Strathmore Avenue to the west, single-family residential land uses to the north, and Paradise Trailer Park and Apartments to the east. Project Area 2 "Barr Lumber Site": This area is located on the southeast corner of Valley Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue, and includes three parcels totaling approximately 3.3 acres. Rubio Wash is located just south of site and a combination of commercial and single-family residential land uses are located to the east. It is envisioned that the High Intensity Commercial land use designation will expand opportunities for commercial uses that contribute to jobs and tax revenues. Change in Land Use Designation of Existing Mixed-Use Areas The majority of all existing portions of the City that are currently designated for mixed- use development would revert back to their prior land use designation as stated in the City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Paae 4 of 7 1987 General Plan. The reduction of land area designated for mixed-use development to four smaller areas and the creation of a High Intensity Commercial land use designation will affect the land use categories within the City the following way: • Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial land will decrease by 298 acres • Low Density Residential land will increase by 8 acres • Medium Density Residential land will increase by 16 acres • High Density Residential land will increase by 19 acres • Commercial designated land will increase by 182 acres • Mixed-Use Industrial/Commercial land will increase by 52 acres • Public Facilities land will decrease by 15 acres The following table provides a comparison between the existing General Plan and the proposed alternative with respect to estimated population and number of dwelling units at the year 2025. Development and Population Comparisons between 2008 General Plan and General Plan Amendment 09-01 Dwellin Units Population 2008 General Plan Land Use Policy 20,783 80,386 General Plan Amendment 09-01 Land Use Policy 15,924 61,480 Only minor changes are proposed to the existing land use designations' goals and policies defined in the General Plan, with the exception of the Commercial designation. To attract signature, tax generating hotels, the Commercial land use designation will be modified to allow such uses to be developed up to maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if their projects include higher design standards. If hotel projects do not provide the specific amenities outlined in the General Plan, such projects will only be allotted a 0.35:1 FAR. Circulation, Resource Management, and Public Safety Elements General Plan Amendment 09-01 also proposes to amend the Circulation, Resource Management, and Public Safety Elements to address the proposed land use changes and to comply with Assembly Bill 162. Circulation Element General Plan Amendment 09-01 proposes to amend the Circulation Element to address the proposed land use changes. The Circulation Element addresses issues related to vehicular circulation, parking management, public transit, walking, biking, and trails. In order to adequately update the Circulation Element a traffic study (Exhibit H) was completed by KOA Corporation on February 19, 2010. This study documents the methods and results of the analysis of existing and future circulation conditions in the City of Rosemead, assesses the potential impacts of growth under the Circulation Element update, and provides recommendations regarding improvements that may be City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Pace 5 of 7 needed to accommodate the anticipated growth levels. Based on these recommendations, the Circulation Element was amended to refine the goals, policies, and actions to address anticipated mobility needs, and the ability of the roadway network and the various transportation modes to meet future travel demands through the buildout year of the Land Use Element (2025). General Plan Modifications to Comply with Assembly Bill 162 General Plan Amendment 09-01 also proposes to amend the Land Use, Resource Management, and Public Safety Elements to comply with Assembly Bill 162 (AB 162). AB 162 requires that the City identify and annually review the areas covered by the General Plan that are subject to flooding as identified by floodplain mapping by either the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources (DWR). This is accomplished by reference to the Public Safety Element, where flooding is discussed in further detail. Public Responses on General Plan Amendment 09-01 Two letters of comment were submitted to the Planning Commission for their consideration on March 1, 2010. These letters have been included in Exhibit I. One letter is from Mr. and Mrs. Michael P. Lieu who owns a single commercial property at 7951 Garvey Avenue, which is surrounded by the former Auto Auction site. The property owner requested that the new commercial land use designation not be applied to their property. The Planning Commission granted their request on March 1, 2010. The second letter, dated February 26, 2010, is from the new property owner of the former Auto Auction site, Metodo Investments, LLC. This letter was a request to the Planning Commission to postpone the March 1, 2010 hearing to a future date. Lastly, on April 5, 2010, the Planning Division received a letter of comment from Craig Lawson & Co., LLC, a land use consulting firm who is representing Metodo Investments, LLC (Exhibit J). This letter outlines a request to the City Council to defer consideration of the General Plan Amendment for the project site, or to direct staff to modify the General Plan Amendment to permit development of the site with a higher FAR upon the approval of a Specific Plan. Craig Lawson & Co.'s letter provides several reasons for their request including, but not limited to, their need of more time to study project site's highest and best use, their desire to work with the City to evaluate various development possibilities, and their to provide flexibility to the property owner considering the economic climate. The letter also expresses their concern regarding the proposed FAR changes on the subject site, as they believe the proposed FAR is too low. City staff met Metodo Investment's project team on two occasions within the last month. During these meetings the City informed them that the Planning Commission reviewed the General Plan Amendment and recommended City Council approval on March 1, 2010, and that the Planning Commission's recommendation will be brought to the City Council for their consideration on April 13, 2010. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A Final Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit K) concerning the updated General Plan City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 6 of 7 was certified by Rosemead City Council Resolution No. CC-2008-66, on October 14, 2008. Findings were made in accordance with Sections 15090, 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was also adopted, pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the State CEQA Statutes. The conclusions of the Final EIR were that most environmental impacts resulting from long range implementation of the General Plan would be less than significant, or reduced to less than significant with the mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP. The following impacts were found to be unavoidable and significant, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted to explain how the benefits of the updated Plan outweigh these negative environmental consequences: Population and Housing, Transportation, Recreation, Air Quality, and Utilities and Service Systems. According Section 15164 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act, the lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The conditions detailed in Section 15162 relate to substantial changes in the project, which would require major revisions to the previous EIR. An Addendum EIR is proposed for General Plan Amendment 09-01, with a new Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of CEQA Guidelines. The Addendum assesses the environmental effects of the proposed General Plan revisions in terms of whether the impacts would be substantially different from and/or more severe than the impacts identified in the 2008 Final EIR. As with the 2008 Final EIR, the following impacts were found to be unavoidable and significant to essentially the same degree as set forth in the 2008 Final EIR, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is proposed for adoption to explain how the benefits of the updated Plan outweigh these negative environmental consequences: Population and Housing, Transportation, Recreation, Air Quality, and Utilities and Service Systems: Solid Waste. STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS Authority for and Scope of General Plans Section 65300 et seq of the California Government Code sets standards for each city to prepare, adopt, and amend a comprehensive general plan. This plan coordinates the long-term physical development goals and objectives of the City. Government Code Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 66474 require that day-to-day development decisions, such as zoning and land subdivisions should be consistent with the General Plan. Assembly Bill 2292 (Dutra) - General Plans and Residential Density Assembly Bill 2292 requires each city to ensure that its land use plans and programs provide adequate sites to accommodate its share of the regional housing need. The proposed alternative land use policy was carefully analyzed with the City's Housing Element consultant to determine whether the City would be able to meet its fair share City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 7 of 7 allocation of regional housing need under the reduced mixed-use land use scenario. The results of this analysis indicated that the City can adequately accommodate the additional 780 units required under Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091, this public hearing notice has been mailed to all real property owners subject to General Plan Amendment 09-01. In addition, this notice has been published in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the local agency, as the number of owners of real property within 300 feet of the project site is greater than 1,000. Lastly, this notice is also posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing. Prepared by: ubmitted by: ,41~ c~ Sheri Bermejo Principal Planner Community velopment Director Exhibits: A. Land Use Map B. PC Staff Report, March 1, 2010 C. PC Resolution No. 10-03 D. PC Meeting Minutes, March 1, 2010 E. CC Resolution No. 2010-23 (with Attachment "A" Draft General Plan) F. Addendum EIR G. Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Maps H. CD - Traffic Analysis, prepared by KOA Corporation, February 19, 2010 1. Memo to Planning Commission, dated March 1, 2010 J. Letter from Craig Lawson & Co., LLC, dated April 5, 2010 K. Final EIR, Certified October 14, 2008 C City of Rosemead GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Adopted by Rosemead City Council on XXX via Resolution XXX • City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91170 626.288.6671 0 I N T R 0 D U C T I O N • 1 )UCTION OSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN • mision Rosemead as E a city where people have many options for housing, employment, shopping, and recreation. EnNision a city where businesses create a strong economic foundation for high- quality municipal services, and where parks and recreational facilities offer opportunities for a diverse population to exercise and interact. Emision a city where schools and teachers educate and inspire youth, and where the natural environment is protected and enhanced. This is the Vision for Rosemead; the General Plan ,Aill help the City realize this vision. Draµing by CanIn Yip, Muscatel Intermediate school student Since its incorporation in 1959, Rosemead has become an increasingly racially and ethnically diverse community. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the City's population was approximately 49 percent Asian and 41 percent Hispanic, which is significantly higher than the State population percentage for both groups. An important component of this General Plan Aill be to address specific issues to meet the needs of Rosemead's diverse population. P A G E i- t F E R R U A R Y 1 6. 2 0 1 0 I N T R O D U C T 1 0 N • General Plan Visions With this General Plan, the Cite seeks to: • Enhance the commercial areas along key corridors, and most specifically Garvey Avenue and Valley Boulevard; ■ Create an economically viable downtown that blends retail, office, and residential uses in a walkable, attractive setting; • Enhance parks and recreational space in undelserved neighborhoods; ■ Accommodate the demand for quality mixed-use development that can contribute to commercial growth and enhance opportunities for higher-density residential development; ■ Protect homeowner investments and the availability of well-maintained, relatively affordable housing units; • Minimize the impact of traffic associated with growth within the San Gabriel Valley and broader region. Adopted by City Council on October 14, 2008, the General Plan establishes the framework for moiing from the Rosemead of today toward the desired community of the future. This General Plan guides the City to the year 2025 by establishing goals and policies that address land use, circulation, safety, and • open space. Each of these issues affects quality of life in Rosemead and the economic health of the communih-. Incorporating input from community leaders and businesses into the General Plan works to retain the qualities that make the City unique, responds to the dynamics of growth in the Los Angeles region, and meets the changing needs of residents. Implementation of the General Plan will ensure that future development projects in the City are consistent with the community's goals, and that adequate urban services are available to meet the needs of all new development As Rosemead moves towards 2025, the City, its residents, and the business community are committed to implementing a long- range plan that enhances the physical, economic, and human resources of this diverse and community-oriented Citv. P A G E i- 2 E E B R U 4 R is I N T R O D U C T I O N 0 • Rosemead's Area Planning The City of Rosemead is 5.2 square miles in size and located in the San Gabriel Valley, approximately ii miles east of downtown Los Angeles. Rosemead has easy accessibility to several freeways that connect it to the City to Los Angeles and the larger Los Angeles metropolitan region. The San Bernardino Freeway (Interstate io) runs east-west through the City, and the Pomona Freeway (State Route 6o) runs through the southern portion (see Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2). Interstate 710 to the west provides direct access to Long Beach, and Interstate 605 to the east connects to Huntington Beach. Interstate 210 to the north provides east-west connection to the San Fernando Valley and the Inland Empire. History of Rosemead The Rosemead area was settled by Gabrieleno Native N_vckoff, Beth and Joan Walton, The City of Rosemead: An HLMorical Sketchbook: 1984. Page 5 P A G E 1- 3 F E B R U A R Y 1 6 z o 1 0 0 Was incorporated in 199cq %,ith a pgpulation of is.476. Forty- seven years after incorporation. the City of Rosemead had an I N T R O D U C T I O N 0 This page intentionally left blank. 11 P A G E I- q 0 • • • Sources: City of Rosemead, DMP Inc. Feet 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Figure 1-1 Regional Location Map City of Rosemead June 2008 General Plan Update I N T R O D U C T I O N 0 This page intentionally left blank. P A G E i- 6 F E B R U A R Y 1 6 . 2 0 1 0 0 • • 1 \ , I 'r-,General Plan \ ~ ~ Grand Av '-agfi \ a' d 1 1 \ ~ ~w\11 Misr ~ - lov4Sr_~osa R' Aaron I a' an - - ~N'as - - l --~•-1 I ValleYBlvd !a - Ste - , ~ -I I a•\~l ~ i ~ ~ Marshall St r _ . <g, E - L•._- A-•don gyn.. t' &an-9MrrI I,mp - • f I union PndficltrlhWd-- . !O 1 71 7 > r~.: 4yl 'relstaq Av < f ` Do h St ~ ~ I ' < < s _ Emerson PI'. _ = INI mare St _ _ / Park St zAv <Flewrnatk Av ~I\ W b 8 g FM A~ aGarvli• AV ~J ; • 1' ~HiqhdfffSt .g s I Graves Av- < I I I . J ; r • III I J Neim St t \ -T~ _ L , 1 I 16* o4s°o !Ie/ei i- . / Pomwrf'~!~_-- Pomona Fwy ■ \t` ,j~ • • Rosemead City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Major Roods I--!•i-~--F+ Railroad River/Wash • Source: City of Rosemead, DMP Inc. Figure 1 -2 Feet Planning Area 0 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800 9 City of Rosemead June 2008 General Plan Update I N T R O D U C T I O N • This page intentionally left blank. • N A G E i- 8 I P E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2 o l o 0 restimated population of 57.144.3 General Plan Purpose and Scope Every jurisdiction in California is required to adopt a general plan and update this plan at regular inten-als. The purpose of the general plan is to anticipate and plan for "the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning" (California Government Code §65300). Rosemead's General Plan might be compared to a roadmap, in that this plan sets a course for the future. This "map" first describes the issues facing Rosemead today, and then sets the course, expressed through goals, policies, and implementation programs, to achieve the desired Rosemead of the future. The primary benefit of long-range planning is that such planning enhances the Citv's ability to control how Rosemead will look and function as time passes. Many of the goals and policies contained in this plan will improve and sustain neighborhoods, foster a better business climate, and enhance the natural environment. The links forged within the plan between land uses and the transportation, infrastructure, and public services networks will provide the flexibility needed to accommodate growth and change over the life of the plan. The General Plan also focuses on the connections between residential neighborhoods and adjacent commercial centers that may lead to a healthier lifestyle for residents by creating opportunities to walk within the Cih• that did not exist before. To be considered comprehensive, this General Plan must address many, issues that are related to and influence land use decisions. Specifically, in addition to land use, State law requires that the General Plan address circulation, housing, the conservation of natural resources, the preservation of open space, the noise environment, and the protection of public safety (Government Code §65302). Jurisdictions may prepare and adopt any other General Plan element or address any other topics of particular relevance or interest to that community, with the understanding that these optional elements must be 3 California Department of Finance, 2006 Estimate. I N T R O D U C T 1 0 N P A G E i- g F E B R U A R Y t 6 2 o t o Deleted: the Savannah Ranch, which is located on the current Savannah School site. Leonard J. and Amanda Rose were other early settlers, who established Roses Meadow (Rosemead Ranch) as a winer', as well as a breeding and training area for horses. The Rosemead area included these two ranches, as well as 0 Memorial near City Hall I N T R O D U C T I O N • implemented with the same %igor - and are subject to the same legal scrutiny - as the mandatory elements or topics. The Rosemead General Plan discusses these issues in five chapters, called elements. These elements are: The Land Use Element, which focuses on the built environment and pulls together issues and goals from the other elements, laying out the framework for balancing development with broader community aims. The Circulation Element, which addresses issues related to vehicular circulation, parking management, public transit, walking, biking, and trails. The Resource Management Element, which examines both the natural and human-made environments, and establishes policies to protect those resources that distinguish and define Rosemead. Topics addressed in this element include parks, recreation, open space, community facilities, air quality, water resources and conservation, and energy consen-ation. ■ The Public Safety Element, which identifies hazards • present in the community and defines ways for proper planning and emergency response services to mitigate the hazards includinz floodine. ■ The Noise Element identifies community noise concerns and includes policies and programs to minimize noise impacts in Rosemead. ■ The Housing Element identifies current and future housing. Rosemead's Housing Element is updated even five years as required by State law. The City currently has an adopted and certified Housing Element dated 2ooo. This element is due to be reNised in., llo. Table 1-3! shows the relationship bet%veen the six elements of the Rosemead General Plan and the State-mandated elements. P A G E r- i o I F E S R U A R Y 1 6. 2 o l o Deleted: 2008 0 Walkable Rosemead Boulevard I N T R O D U C T 1 O N • Table i-i Relationship between Rosemead General Plan and State Mandated Elements State Mandated General Plan Elements = O o A d ~ C Q ~ a = ~ G j v Rosemead General Plan o w o a Elements a S ~ Land Use Circulation Community Resources Safety Noise Housing The General Plan also includes Implementation Actions, located Hithin each element, identifOng the specific actions the Cite will undertake to implement goals and policies. Ongoing reNiew of these Implementation Programs allows the City to adjust programs and planned actions to respond to new or refocused priorities, to address annual budget constraints and/or opportunities, and to account for changes in the physical conditions or economic circumstances of the community (for example, occurrence of a natural disaster). Element Structure Each of the fire elements is organized according to the following format: ■ Introduction • Issues, Goals, and Policies ■ Police Map and Plan The Introduction of each element describes the focus and the purpose of the element. The relationship of the element to other General Plan elements is also specified. P A G E i- i i F E B R U A R Y i 6. 2 0 1 0 11 I N T R o D U C T 1 o N • The Issues, Goals, and Policies section is based on input received from the community, members of the City Council and Planning Commission, and City staff. Issues represent the needs or concerns important to the community. Goals are overall statements of community desires and consist of broad statements of purpose or direction. Policies serve as guides to the City Council and Cite staff in reNiewing development proposals and making other decisions that affects future growth and development in Rosemead. The Policy Map and Plan section proYides an oveniew of the City's course of action to implement identified goals and policies. This section also includes Implementation Actions, which identifies specific actions to achieve the goals and plans identified in each General Plan element. Community Participation • During the General Plan update process that began E in 2003, the City created a four-page survey that asked residents and business owners in Rosemead f what they think is special about Rosemead, and what changes they would like to see in the next 15 to 20 years. The survey was also available for rwn-- dow-nloading on the City;s website. Respondents were asked to complete the survey and email or mail it to the City of Rosemead, or drop it off at Cite Hall. The City received 95 completed surveys. In addition, the Mayor and City Council members were inteniewed to proNide direction for the Plan. 440 and to identify the issues and opportunities that will enhance the quality of life in Rosemead. Their °"'r :osemraa c single family residential areas responses were used to draft goals and policies for each General Plan element. Public meetings were conducted before the Planning Commission and City Council during the spring and summer of 2007, with many residents attending to share their ideas and comments. F E B RIT ARY 16. 20 1 o 0 P A G E I- 1 2 N T R O D U C T I O N is endorsed a concept and directed the Planning staff to modifi- the General Plan in accordance with the concept. The modifications were then pres:-i:ttj lh,- public, Planning Commission, and Cirv Council un Related Plans and Programs State law places the General Plan at the top of the land use planning regulation hierarchy. Several local ordinances and other City plans must conform to General Plan policy and work to implement the Plan. Also, regional governmental agencies, such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), have been established to address regional planning issues such as air quality, transportation, affordable housing, and habitat conservation. These regional government agencies have prepared a number of regional policy documents and plans that effect Rosemead. The following section describes ordinances, plans, and programs that must be consulted in association with the General Plan in development and planning decisions. Rosemead Zoning Ordinance The Zoning Ordinance, the primary tool used to implement the General Plan, regulates development type and intensity cith-Aide. Development regulations imposed include those setting limits on building height, requiring setbacks, and speciA ing the percentage of a site that must be landscaped. California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was adopted by the State legislature in response to a public mandate for thorough environmental analysis of projects impacting the environment. The proNisions of the law and environmental review procedure are described in the CEQA Law and Guidelines. CEQA is the instrument for ensuring that environmental impacts of local development projects are appropriately assessed and mitigated. SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) undertakes regional planning for the six-county SCAG region of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial and Ventura counties. SCAG's efforts focus on developing regional strategies to minimize traffic congestion, protect environmental quality, and provide adequate housing. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide sets forth broad goals intended P A G E i- 1 3 F E S R U A R T 1 6. z o 1 n 0 I N T R O D U C T I O N to be implemented by participating local and regional • jurisdictions and the SCAQMD. SCAG has adopted companion documents to the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, most notably the Regional Transportation Plan. California Clean Air Act In 1988, the California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act that requires the SCAQMD to prepare a plan to attain state ambient air quality standards in the South Coast Air Basin. State air standards are generally more stringent than their federal equivalents, and attaining them will require encompassing and effective plan measures. The Clean Air Act requires reductions from all sources of pollution: large and small industry, mobile sources, household use of polluting products, and the transportation sector. The Act also requires the Basin Plan to be reused and updated every three years. The Clean Air Act grants new authority to the State's local air pollution control districts to adopt and enforce transportation control measures. In accordance with the Clean Air Act, areas with "severe" air pollution, which are defined as those that cannot reach State standards by 1999 and include the South Coast Air Basin, are required to include transportation control measures to achieve an average vehicle ridership of 1.5 persons or more during weekday commute hours (Refer to the Circulation Element for discussion of the City policy with respect to average vehicle ridership.). Similarly, the Clean Air Act calls for no net increases in vehicle emissions after 1997 and requires the SCAQMD to develop programs to control emissions from indirect sources or traffic • attractors such as housing developments, office parks, and shopping centers. The mitigation of traffic-generated air pollution from these sources will need to be closely linked with land use decisions. Congestion Management Plan The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is a program adopted by the State Legislature and approved by the State voters in 199o through Proposition 111. The CMP was created for the following purposes: ■ To link land use, transportation, and air qualih decisions; ■ To develop a partnership among transportation decision-makers that de-ises appropriate transportation solutions including all modes of travel; and ■ To propose transportation projects that are eligible to compete for state gas tax funds. A G E I- 1 4 F E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2010 0 I N T R O D U C T I O N • The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is responsible for preparing the County's CMP. The MTA is required by State law to monitor local implementation of all CMP elements. Local jurisdictions are required to monitor arterial congestion levels, monitor transit services along certain corridors, and implement an adopted trip reduction ordinance and land use analysis program. In addition, jurisdictions are required to track and report all new development activit}'. Regional Transportation Plan The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a component of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide prepared by SCAG to address regional issues, goals, objectives, and policies for the Southern California region into the early part of the twenty-first centum The RTP, which SCAG periodically updates to address changing conditions in the southland, has been developed with active participation from local agencies throughout the region, elected officials, the business community, community groups, private institutions, and private citizens. The RTP sets broad goals for the region and proNides strategies to reduce problems related to congestion and mobility. In recognition of the close relationship between the traffic and air quality issues, the assumptions, goals, and programs contained in the RTP parallel those used to prepare the Air Quality Management Plan. Air Quality Management Plan The South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is a comprehensive program designed to bring the South Coast Air Basin, of which Rosemead is a part, into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards. The AQMP was prepared and adopted by the SCAG and SCAQMD. Since motor vehicles are a major source of air pollution, the AQMP places substantial emphasis on reducing motor vehicle miles traveled. The AQMP foresees cities taking an increasing role in sohing air pollution problems through adoption of trip reduction ordinances at the local level. The cities can take an increasing role through the adoption and implementation of Air Qualith Elements and the implementation of land use policies that reduce individual vehicle use. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System As part of a multi-pronged effort to improve the quality of water resources nationwide, the federal government authorized the State Regional Water Quality Control Board and its regional offices, such as the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, to set up programs to implement National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) goals. Under the P A G E i- 1 g F E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2 O I O 0 I N T R O D U C T I O N • NPDES Stormwater Permit issued to the County of Los Angeles and Rosemead as co-permittees, most new development projects in the City are required to incorporate measures to minimize pollutant levels in stormwater runoff. Compliance is required at the time that construction permits are issued, as well as over the long term through periodic inspections. NPDES requirements are adopted as part of the Rosemead Municipal Code, and are enforced by Los Angeles County, the State Water Resource Control Board, and the City's Public Works Department. • P A G E t- 1 6 F E B R I A R Y t 6 _ 2 o i o E L A N D U S E • Introduction osemead accommodates a diversih. of land uses to maintain a balanced community with Vibrant residential neighborhoods, a healthy economic base, and quality services for residents and xisitors. The Land Use Element establishes policies for the hypes and location of land uses cihz+ide. The Zoning Ordinance implements these policies by establishing detailed use regulations and development standards for all properties. State planning law requires that the Land Use Element designate "the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land" for a variety of purposes (Government Code Section 65802[a]). Through maps and text, this Element defines the distribution and intensity of development for residential, commercial, industrial, parks/open space, and public facility land uses mithin Rosemead and its sphere of influence areas. Finally, the Element describes the relationship between General Plan land use policy, zoning, and other plans. P A G E 2 - t M A R C H g t 2 0 . 0 0 KUSEMEAD UENERAL PLAN L A N D U S E Relationship to Other Elements and Plans The Land Use Element proNides the framework for all other General Plan elements, as the manner in which land is used in Rosemead affects: ■ The location and design of roadways, bicycle paths, and pedestrian walkways; The location, type, and design of new housing development (Housing Element); and ■ Park location and use, and environmental resource protection and use (Resources Management Element). Zoning Ordinance The City's zoning ordinance, which is part of the Municipal Code, d Aides the City into areas called zoning districts. The zoning ordinance establishes regulations for each district with respect to permitted uses, allowable density, building height, development character, etc. The zoning ordinance consists of a map that delineates the district boundaries, plus text that explains each district's purpose, specifies permitted and conditional uses, and establishes development, maintenance, and performance standards. The zoning ordinance serves as the primary implementation tool for the Land Use Element. Under California law, the zoning ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan. P A G E 2- 2 M A R C H cx i. 2 o i o 0 Although the Land Use Element is often the most referred element in the General Plan, it represents only one part of the General Plan. Coordination between and among all of the General Plan Elements is required to comprehensively address long-range community goals. L A N D U S E Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) undertakes regional planning efforts for the six-county SCAG region consisting of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial counties. SCAG's planning efforts focus on developing strategies to minimize traffic congestion, protect environmental quality, and provide adequate housing throughout the region. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide - developed Nrith active participation from local agencies, elected officials, the business community, community groups, private institutions, and private citizens - sets forth broad goals and objectives intended to be implemented by participating jurisdictions and agencies such the South Coast Air Quality- Management District and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Rosemead Downtown Vision Plan The City is currently considering a Rosemead Downtown Vision Plan. This plan focuses on urban design opportunities on Valley- Boulevard. The Plan calls for: • Enhancing existing resources - add landscaping and streetscape along Valley Boulevard and encouraging "focal point" buildings at opportunity sites or parcels. • Creating potential districts - identify opportunity • parcels along Valley Boulevard near Walnut Grove Avenue and Temple City Boulemard to create image- making public spaces and focal point buildings. • Emphasizing public space - expand the use of public space including the use of courtyards, plazas, outdoor dining, and pedestrian friendly retail. • Enhance Wayfinding - improve signage and placemaking images to encourage the feel of separate districts and distinct places along Valley Boulevard. Measuring Density and Intensity While people generally understand land use terms like "residential," "commercial," and "industrial," State law requires a clear and concise description of these categories. In addition, P A G E z- 3 M A R C H r: i. 2010 0 L A N D U S E • population and intensity standards must be specified. To describe the intensity of use - how much development exists on a property - land use planners have developed the quantitative measures of density and intensity. The term density describes the development capacity of residential land. The General Plan describes density in terms of dwelling units per net acre of land (du/ac), exclusive of present or planned streets and other public rights-of-way. Density is also used to describe population density in terms of the number of persons per net acre. Development intensity refers to the extent of development on a parcel of land or lot. Intensity may be calculated using several measures, such as the total building floor area, building height, floor-area ratio, or the percent of lot coverage. The General Plan uses floor-area ratio, or FAR, as a measure of non- residential intensity. The floor-area ratio is the ratio between the total gross floor area of all buildings on a lot and the total land area of that lot. This measure does not include area within parking structures. 1.5 FAR is This Land Use Element addresses how properties will be developed over time and the extent to which private and public redevelopment efforts will change, intensify, or otherwise modify uses of property cit%ldde. This section describes the planned distribution and development intensities of all land uses, and identifies specific goals the City will pursue relative to each designated use. P A G E z- 4 This diagram illustrates how FAR controls the intensity of use on a lot. FAR is determined by dividing the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot by the land area of that lot. For example, a 20,000 square foot building on a 40,000 square foot lot yields an FAR of o.5:i. A o.5:t FAR allows a single-stony building which covers half the lot, or a two-storv building Hith reduced lot coverage. 0 Land Use Plan L A N D U S E • Land Use Policy Map To maintain the desired balance of uses in the community- and achieve goals regarding housing, economic development, parks, and education, the City %%ill make land use decisions in conformance with the Land Use Policy Map, illustrated in Figure 2-1. The Land Use Policy Map provides a two- dimensional description of land use policy, indicating the preferred location and types of permitted uses throughout the City. Land Use Categories This Land Use Element designates five major categories of land use: W residential, (2) commercial, (3) office/light industrial, (4) mixed-use, and (5) public facilities. The residential designation is further subdivided into three density ranges: Low, Medium, and High. To provide for a diversity of mixed- use approaches, the Mixed-Use designation includes three subcategories: Residential/Commercial, High Density Residential/ Commercial, and Industrial/Commercial. Table 2-1 summarizes the densih• and intensity associated with each land use category and the aggregate acreage for each. The table indicates a maximum densit-• or intensity for each category, which indicates the maximum development potential of any individual parcel. However, not every parcel in Rosemead will be developed to the maximum density or • intensity due to physical and other constraints such as public right-of-way needs, placement of buildings, zoning requirements, market desires, and other factors. Also, many residential neighborhoods in Rosemead are fully developed and not expected to experience any significant new development or "recycling" where an existing structure is removed and a new structure is built in its place. Thus, Table 2-1 also indicates typical densities and intensities that can be expected over the life of this General Plan. Altogether, these factors are used to estimate the possible buildout capacity of the City in terms of population, housing units, and square feet of commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential uses. The typical densities and intensities are for planning purposes only. Any development proposal involving a density/intensity in excess of the minimum but equal to or below the maximum should not require a General Plan Amendment. P A G E 2-$ M A R C H a I. 2 U 1 0 0 L A N U U S E • This page intentionaliv left blank. • P A G E z- 6 0 • L A N D U S E This page intentionally left blank. P A G E s- 8 MARCH at. solo 0 L A N D U S E • 11 Notes: Land Use Categories Table 2-1 Land Use Categories and Buildout Potential Maximum 17 T,pical Population LDR Low Density Residential 7 DU/AC 7 DU/AC 28 Persons/AC MDR Medium Density Residential 12 DU/AC 8.5 DU/AC 34 Persons/AC HDR High Density Residential 3o DU/AC 19.8 DU/AC 79 Persons/AC Commercial / Business Categories C Commerciale 0.35:1 FAR 0.33:1 FAR N/A HIC Hi"11 Intensity Commercial 0.3;:1 FAR 0.'i_i:1 FAR N/.4 OLI Office/Light Industrial 0.5:1 FAR 0.42:1 FAR N/A Mixed-Use Category MRC Mixed-Use 2-;-3o DU/AC Zo DU/Acre and t Persons AC _ / Residential/Commercial fe 1.1 FAR ika FAR MHRC Mixed=Use-High Density 0- k0 DU/AC a DU( Acre and 4mPersons/AC Residential/Commercial(] 2.0:1 FAR 2.0:1 FAR MIC Mixed-Use Industrial/Commercial 2.5:1 FAR Lon FAR N/A OS "Y"' SF... / I N/A I N/A I N/A Resources a) DUs/AC: Dwelling Units Per Net Acre (net acres does not include public streets or right-of->^a}-s) b) FAR: Floor-Area Ratio r Population Densih• is estimated based on an average household size of 3,ux I persons per househc vacancy rate of 3 % according to the too California Department of Finance, Demographic Uni mix, assumes Residential Categories Three land use categories are established to accommodate a range of housing types and densities. Presemation and enhancement of single-family residential neighborhoods is a key goal. New development must be compatible %%ith and complement established residential neighborhoods. In residential areas, in addition to the priman• residential use, and a- _ use P A G E s- 9 M A R C H s j. 2 0 i o 0 • • L A N D 11 S E accessory structures, group homes, religious and charitable organizations are permitted consistent with State law and zoning ordinance requirements. Low Density Residential The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use category is characterized by low-density residential neighborhoods consisting primarily of detached single-family dwellings on indiNidual lots. The minimum permitted density is o dwelling units per acre. The maximum permitted density is 7.o dwelling units per acre. The typical population density is approximately 28 persons per acre. Medium Density Residential The Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use category allows for densities of up to 12 units per acre with a minimum of o dwelling units per acre. Housing types within this density range include single-family detached homes on smaller lots, duplexes, and attached units. The typical population density is approximateh 34 persons per acre. High Density Residential The High Density Residential (HDR) category accommodates many? forms of attached housing - triplexes, fourplexes, apartments, and condominiums/ townhouses - and small-lot or clustered detached units. The maximum permitted density is 30 units per acre with a minimum of o dwelling units per acre, and the typical population density is 79 persons per acre. Commercial Categories Businesses in Rosemead's commercial districts provide important senices to residents and contribute substantially to the City's tax revenue base. The tree Commercial categories are intended to support business actixit• and to provide incentives to property owners to improve areas that function below their economic potential. Commercial The Commercial designation applies to retail and serice commercial centers located along maior arterials in the City: M Valley Boulevard west of P A G E z- r o !MARCH it. zoio 11! • Commercial properties Deleted: two 0 Low Density Single Family Residential Development Southern California Edison building Muscatel. (2) Vallev Boulevard near and east of Rosemead Boulevard, _ (.,i)- G_ arv•ev Avenue between New Avenue and _ _ - - _ _ Charlotte Avenue. (4) San Gabriel Boulevard between Park Street and Newark Avenue. (s) just West of the Walnut Grove and Gan,ev Avenue intersection. (6) along Rosemead Boulevard from Mission Drive to Valley Boulevard. and (7) Del Mar from the I-io freeway interchange to Gan•ev Avenue. _ - _ - - _ _ _ - _ Permitted uses include a broad range of retail, office, and service uses that serve local and regional needs. Prohibited uses include Warehousing, manufacturing, industrial uses, and similar uses. The maximum permitted FAR is o.3s:>r- . L A N D U S E Overnight accommodations, such as hotels, may developed up to maximum permitted FAR of I.o:1 if their projects include hither design standards, the "required hotel amenities- and a minimum of two "additional hotel amenities" as jdentified in Table 2-2. If a hotel project does not meet the amenities in Table 2-2. they can only build up to o.s;:1 FAR. Table 2-2 Required Hotel Amenities (a) Additional Hotel Ameriifies • P A G E S- r I M A R C H -41, 2010 • Concierge des • Florist and gift shop • Ballroom • Convenience st re ■ Business center sen-ices snack shOD Laundry service ■ Meeting rooms Davcare sen-ices Pavilion lounge • Restaurant, bar, and lounge • Day s Pool or apa/'al cuzzi Fitness center Valet ap rking Note: Development approaches for Commercial designations include multi-storv structures With underground or structured parking. Where commercial development abuts residential neighborhoods, new projects must be designed With sensitivities to the residential uses in terms of massing, siting of parking and loading facilities, and lighting. Deleted: Walnut Grove Avenue/Rush Street Deleted: and the commercial areas south of the Pomona Freevav. 1 he maximum permitted FAR is o.35:t. Deleted: , except for overnight accommodations as follows Deleted: may have a maximum permitted FAR of t.o:t. Such design characteristics and design amenities must include in order to obtain a F.4R higher than 0.3.5: t: 0 • 0 L A N D U S E Hieh Intensity Commercial The High Intensity Commercial designation consists of approximately 19.2 acres %%ithin the follo%%ing two project areas: • High Intensih, Commercial Area 2. This area is located on the southeast corner of 1'a11ev Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue, includes three parcels totaling approximately g3 agrees. Ru~,io N1'a is _ located just south of site and a combination of commercial and single-family residential land uses are located to the east. The High Intensity Commercial prmides up to 270.000 square feet of mmunerrial retail and restaurant-related uses. The plan emisions complimentan• mile of land uses and building sizes as identified in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4. P A G E 2- 1 2 M A R C H -g1. 2 o 3 o Deleted: Project Deleted: A t Deleted: q 0 L A N D U S E • Table 2-3 High Intensitv Commercial/Commercial Designation Land Use and Building Si:e Requirements For Hic-lh Intensity Commercial Area 1 The orimarv use of the site shall have a major anchor tenant (75,ooo-14o.ooo square feet) and/or an overnight accommodation use. A IIowed Land Uses Alloable Building Pad Sizes Large Retail Ce nter with Anchor Tenants Consumer elcxc tro department store nic_c and amliances retail, , discount and variety retail, home '7;.000-140,000 4uare feet imiggvement. an d hardware store General Retail Home furnishing Outlets and housewares retail: music. Hideo. hook and enterta inment retail: office products retail: 1s.ooo - 3s.ooo sstvrting and recr eational equipment retail: hobby square feet and craft retail: a nd other specialh• retail Restaurant-Related Uses Casual dining re~taurante, snecial~ateries. and ~.o~ - io_ooo upscale dining square feet Overnight Acco mmodations: Ovemi ht accommodations _ _ , such as hotels, shall have the too Pint rooms follo,Aing minim um amenities: a restaurant. bar, (minimum) lounge, meeting room(s), and business center. As outlined in Zoning Ancillary JTses Ordinance The minimum site area requirement %+Jthin High Intensity Commercial Area 1 shall be 15 acres. The minimum site area requirement ++ithin High Intensity Commercial Area 2 shall be 3 acres. The mil of bind uses and building sizes for each of the ru•~rt arcr l> are outlined in TA)le 2-3 and Table 2-4. P A G E 2- 1 3 M A R C H -,ii. 2 0 i o Formatted: Font: Transit521 BT, 11 Pt Formatted: Font: Transit521 BT, 11 Pt Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Normal 0 L A N D U S E 0 Table 2- High Intensity Commercial/Commercial Designation I-and Use and Buildine Size Requirements For High Intensity Commercial Area 2 The primary use of the site shall have a minimum of one general retail Uuu,! aaiu v~ ar. vv.. AUowed Kind I'-.e% A lowahle Building Pad Sizes General Retail Outlets Home furnishing and houst\Nares retail: rnu ic, id tip. book and entertainment retail office oroducts retail; - ";'00 i r Q f sivrtinz and recreational eauipment retail: hobby t s9 L uare eet and craft retail: and other s-cialty retail Restaurant-Related Uses Casual dining restaurants, specialty eateries. and - ~o.ooo s uj2sc:ale dining quar square feet Overnight Accommodations: Overnight accommodations, such as hotels, shall have the loo guest 1-00M folloi%ing minimum amenities: a restaurant. bar. (minimum) lounge. meeting room(s). and business center. As outlined in Zoning Aneillan• tTSes Ordinance Office/Light Industrial The Office/Light Industrial (O/LI) designation applies to properties generally located at the north and south edges of the City. This category pro-sides suitable locations for manufacturing, assembly, and limited food processing uses, as well as office buildings and business parks. Zoning regulations specify the uses permitted and performance standards for industrial uses. The maximum permitted FAR is 0.5:1. Industrial Use P A G E s- 1 q M A R C H ti. z o o 0 • L A N D U S E Mixed-Use Categories Rosemead has established three Mixed-Use categories to prmide options for innovative approaches to land use and development. These categories allow for a mix of land uses in the same building, on the same parcel of land, or side by side mithin the same area. Such complementary use stimulates business actiNity, encourages pedestrian patronage, and proNides a broader range of options to property owners to facilitate the presenation, re-use and redevelopment of structures. Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial svnerz% The Mixed-Use _Residential/Commercial category allows vertically or horizontally mixed commercial, office, and residential uses, with an emphasis on retail uses along the is ground floor. Pedestrian connections among the uses, and as appropriate to surrounding neighborhoods, should be prodded. The Mixed-Use designation will allow for mixed use and commercial infill development. Further, parcels may be assembled and consolidated to create larger, integrated development sites. All mixed:-use projects are also subject to review and compliance with the City's adopted mixed-use design guidelines. This designation applies to areas of Rosemead with historically less intensive commercial and office development. The Mixed- Use Residential /Commercial category is located on Valley Boulevard between Muscatel Avenue and Valley Boulevard, and on Gan•ev Avenue between Charlotte Avenue and Walnut I Grove Avenue. Residential densities are limited to a maximum of 25 to 30 units per acre. For stand-alone commercial use and integrated mixed-use projects, the maximum permitted FAR is jjc 1.6:1. The hpical population density is approximately persons per acre. P A G E 2- r 5 M A R L H 'A r. 2 0 r o Deleted: along Rosemead Boulevard, Hart Street at Marshall Street, Del Mar Avenue between Hellman and Garvey Avenues, and along San Gabriel and Gladys Avenues. Parcels in these areas generally are not large enough to support major commercial development. Thus Deleted: nq Deleted: , the Mixed Use designation will allow for residential and office Will development. Alternatively, parcels maybe assembled and consolidated to create larger, integrated development sites. 1 1 0 Office Development L A N D U S E • Mixed-Use High Density_Residential/Commercial Similar to the Mixed-Use-Residential/Commercial category, the Mixed-Use High Density Residential/Commercial category permits vertically or horizontally mixed-use commercial, office, and residential uses, but greater residential densities are permitted and encouraged. Retail uses shall be emphasized along the ground floor of street frontages, and pedestrian connections among the uses and surrounding neighborhoods should be prodded. This designation applies to the eastern end of Valley Boulevard and south of Gan•ey Avenue, just west of the eastern boundary. Residential densities are limited to a maximum of 36 to 6o units per acre. For stand-alone commercial use and integrated mixed-use projects, the maximum permitted FAR is 2:1. The typical population density is approximately 191 persons per acre. Mixed-Use Industrial/Commercial The Mixed-Use-Industrial/Commercial category accommodates light industry, research and development, and office uses. The emphasis is on businesses that provide career-oriented and trade jobs. Commercial uses should be limited to those that support the primary industrial and office uses. Areas designated for Mixed-Use - Industrial/Commercial are limited to properties along San Gabriel Boule%ard south of Jjellman Avenue to Park Street, along San Gabri~] Avenue south of the SCE easement to Rush Street, and on Gan•ev Avenue from lays Angeles Count} Public Libyan Walnut Grove to Muscatel Avenue (south side of GaneN Rosemead Breach =Avenue) or City limit (north side of Gan•ev Avenue). The maximum FAR is 2.5:1. Site design shall take into consideration any adjacent residential neighborhoods %%ith regard to parking lot entrances, location of parking and loading facilities, building massing, and lighting. P A G E 2- i 6 M A R C H I a i. 2 o i o Deleted: Newmark 0 Rosemead City HaU • Public Facilities Category The Public Facilities designation applies to those land uses that are operated and maintained for public benefit. Public facilities include educational facilities, parks, utilities, and buildings or areas that support government activities. This land use categon also includes quasi-public uses such as private utilities easements, private schools, and institutional acthities. Open Space Categories Open Space /Natural Resources This category applies to public properties set aside for diverse recreational interests, including parks, baseball/soccer fields, and picnicking areas, as well as open lands required for resource protection. Cemetery This category applies to the Savannah Memorial Park Cemetery (aka El Monte Cemetery) property located along Valley Boulevard. Permitted uses are limited to those ordinarily associated with a cemetery, as defined specifically in the zoning ordinance. Goals and Policies These Land Use Element goals and policies address four cih-aide issues that include: (i) enhancing and maintaining existing single-family neighborhoods; (2) prodding housing opportunities for all segments of the population; (3) presening and encouraging a variety of commercial and industrial actilities; and (4) reNitalizing underperforming commercial corridors. Single-Family Neighborhoods In some neighborhoods, apartments and toAmhomes have replaced older single-family residences. This transition has generally improved neighborhoods with the introduction of higher-quality housing. However, it has also created neighborhoods where single-family residences are directly adjacent to apartments and condominiums, and residents have L A N D U S E P A G E 2- 1 7 M A R C H --ii. 2 0 i o Deleted: Rosemead City Hall 0 Quo 52AC€-------- I.- L A N D U S E • expressed concern regarding privacy and the chanz< in neighborhood character. Maintaining housing conditions and protecting the privacy of single-stony homes are key challenges in established single-family residential neighborhoods. House sizes and heights have increased over time, leading to inconsistence within neighborhoods when newer homes are constructed adjacent to or between older homes. Many of the larger, multi-stony homes have a line of sight into an adjacent home or backyard. The City is committed to preserving established single-family neighborhoods be regulating development and encouraging both property maintenance and rehabilitation. The City has adopted Ordinance No. 851, commonly known as the anti- mansionization ordinance, which amended the zoning code to limit FAR and include design standards to eliminate the looks of excessive density. The City has also adopted and will promote guidelines for new development that encourages high quality, site and building design compatibility with surrounding uses. Goal is Maintain stable and attractive single- family residential neighborhoods. Policy 1.1: Discourage the entitlement and construction of multiple-family units in neighborhoods that are predominately single-famih. Policy 1.2: Pro+ide guidelines and standards to ensure • adequate buffering and screening between lower density residential uses and adjacent higher density residential or non-residential uses to mitigate potential land use conflicts. Policy 1.3: Actively promote the maintenance of properties and buildings through code enforcement. Police 1.4: Through the Conditional Use Permit process, Design Retiiew process, residential design guidelines, or zoning enforcement, regulate new and large residential structures that compromise neighborhood quality. Policy 1.5: Require that new single-family residential construction, additions, and renovations be designed to protect the privacy of adjacent residential properties and the quality of established neighborhoods. P A G E 2- 1 8 MARCH s i. 2 o i o 0 • • Policy 1.6: Where the housing stock and neighborhood design are of high quality, maintain and provide the foundation for strong neighborhood interaction, and ensure that the bulk and mass of new single-family residential buildings or additions be of the same scale as surrounding units within established residential neighborhoods. L A N D U S E Policy 1.7: Foster housing stock and neighborhood revitalization, renovation, and good site/architectural design. Policy 1.8: Require that new single-family units utilize detailed architectural articulations to promote the visual character of neighborhoods and comply with the adopted single family design guidelines. Commercial and Industrial Districts Commercial and industrial districts in Rosemead and the jobs and tax revenues they provide contribute significantly to the City's financial well-being. Economically %iable commercial and industrial businesses generate tax revenue, provide a variety of shopping and commercial activities, and ensure the long-term fiscal health of the City. Preserving, retaining, and building the City's sales tax base through diverse and successful commercial and industrial uses allow Rosemead to continue to provide high level of public services, and to construct public improvements that enhance the community. The Land Use Element and Plan will maintain, enhance, and invigorate commercial development by: Concentrating commercial and industrial businesses in established commercial, office, and industrial districts; Minimizing the "commercial sprawl" of strip commercial development; and Enhancing high qualih commercial building and site design while allowing for increased intensities of use. P A G E S- 1 q 1 Deleted: Policy 1.7: Strengthen neighborhood character by promoting use of high quality architectural design and materials and encouraging new development to be architecturally compaublc with surrounding structures. I - - Deleted: Newer c M A R C H a 1 20.0 1 commercial development L A N D U S F With regard to industrial uses, limited areas in Rosemead are • designated for such businesses, and the City's focus is on retaining and attracting clean industrial uses that have minimal impact on surrounding residential neighborhoods, that provide quality jobs, and that contribute to the tax base. Goal 2: Expanded opportunities for concentrated commercial and industrial uses that contribute jobs and tai revenues to the Polio- 2.1: Establish a well-balanced and carefully planned collection of siznature retail anchors, zeneral retail outlets, casual to upscale restaurants. and upscale oN ernizht accommodations Avhich can take adkantace of the High Intensitv Policy 2.2: Revitalize commercial strip corridors by creating attractive and dynamic pedestrian-friendly activity nodes and commercial centers. Policy 2.3: Encourage continued development of self sustaining commercial uses -Mthin centers located at strategic intersections. Policy 2.4: Discourage further strip commercial development along major arterials. Policy 2.5: Discourage the rezoning of commercial and • industrial districts to residential uses. Policy 2.6: Rigorously enforce property maintenance standards for commercial and industrial properties. Policy- 2.7: Establish and apply architectural design review to additions, remodel of existing buildings and new commercial and industrial development. Policy 2.8: Encourage the reconfiguration and development of neighborhood shopping centers by offering modified development standards, more intense floor-area ratios, and other tools. P A G E 2- 2 0 I M A R C H a i. 2 0 I o 0 L A N D U S E • Mixed-Use The Cite of Rosemead encourages mixed uses at ke}- locations as discussed on pages- and shown on Figure 2-1. he Mixed Us, Jand use designations willpromote stronger and enhanced commercial business districts Enhanced features should include a livelier streetscape, pedestrian- friendly street frontages for new buildings, revitalization of building fagades, creation of active and attractive public spaces, street furniture, and other improvements. A key opportunity exists to revitalize commercial corridors with mixed-use developments that provide both needed housing and commercial retail services. Mixed-use development has several tangible benefits, most importantly: • attracting private investment that can help revitalize older commercial uses; ■ increasing patronage within the area, which translates to economic benefits to businesses and the community; bringing residential and commercial uses within walking distance to each other; and ■ promoting pedestrian-friendly mixed-use projects with public spaces and lively street fronts where people can meet and interact. • For residential and commercial mixed-use projects, tax- generating restaurants, retail uses, and services are required on the ground floor street frontages to create a lively street front. Mixed-use projects often revitalize older commercial districts, but it is important that the design of new mixed-use developments reflect the established character of Rosemead. New mixed-use buildings should be compatible with the scale and massing of adjacent buildings and respect a site's context within the overall community. The City has adopted design guidelines for mixed-use development that provide design criteria to assist developers and City staff on the review of such projects, and to ensure that development is of high quality and reflective of Rosemead's goals. P A G E z - 2 1 M A R C H 11. 2010 0 L A N D U S E • Goal 3: Creation of vibrant, attractive mixed-use development Policy 3.t: Encourage mixed-use development as a means of upgrading established uses and developing vacant parcels along arterials and pro%iding new commercial, residential, and employment opportunities. Policy 3.2: Use the Mixed-Use High Density Residential/Commercial land use designation as a vehicle to help strengthen and revitalize Rosemead's central business district. Policy 3.3: ProNide adequate buffering between existing residential and commercial or light industrial uses within designated Mixed-Use areas, as well as in adjacent areas. Policy 3.4: Encourage pedestrian friendly commercial and residential planned developments wherever possible. Policy 3.5: Promote lively and attractive ground-floor retail uses that will create public revenues needed to provide for Cite senices and the City's tax base. Economic Development and • Revitalization Creating business and employment opportunities will strengthen the City's economic health and provide funds necessan• to pro,.ide desired public facilities and senices. Spending money locally increases the success of local businesses and employers, and improves private investment in the community. Proactive economic development strategies µi11 facilitate and encourage the reNitalization of the City's commercial and industrial corridors. Economic development actiNities include facilitating mixed-use development along commercial corridors to increase the quality of commercial offerings for residents, retaining important industrial districts, ,and focusing regional commercial activity at key locations that are easily accessible. P A G E s- a 2 M A R C H *ti. 2 0 i o Deleted: can 0 L A N D U S E Goal 4: A financially healthy City that can meet residents' desires for public services and facilities Policy 4.1: Retain and attract commercial and industrial businesses that contribute positively to the overall tax base. Policy 4.2: Continue to attract industrial businesses that provide quality jobs for skilled workers. Policy 4.3: Exclude commercial and industrial activities that adversely impact the City- and its residents %+ithout prodding corresponding benefits. Goal 5: Targeted land use changes that improve housing and economic opportunities for residents and businesses and achieve City fiscal and environmental objectives. Policy 5.1: Encourage revitalization of Garvey Avenue- east of the SCE easement py promoting mixed-use development that integrates commercial uses with higher-density multiple-family residential uses. Policy 5.2: Encourage revitalization of the San Gabriel Boulevard corridor south of Hellman Avenue to Park Street and then again south of ~hc SCE easement to Rush Street by promoting mixed- use development that integrates light industrial and office/business park uses. Policy 5.3: Preserve the established Central Business District along Valley Boulevard, and establish opportunities for large commercial and residential mixed-use developments. Policy S.4: Establish a specific plan to create a "doNrntown" Rosemead between Walnut Grove Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard. Policy 5.5: Continue to support development of Rosemead Place as a commercial center, placing emphasis - I - De kt d:. Rosemead Boulevard. and North Del Mar Avenue Deleted: corridors P A G E 2- 2 3 M A R C H Al. 2010 0 L A N D U S E on improved freeway access and %isibility and • high quality landscaping design. Policy 5.6: Require that future commercial projects adjacent to the San Bernardino Freeway, south of Marshall Street, be developed in a manner that: • complements established commercial uses; ■ capitalizes on the high visibility prodded by the adjacent freeway through high quality design and signage; and ■ incorporates the highest construction standards possible. Policy 5. Encourage development of high quality commercial or mixed-use center in the vicinity of the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Temple City Boulevard. Zoning and Land Use Policy The City's zoning ordinance serves as the primary tool to implement General Plan land use policies. Under California lacy, the zoning ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan, meaning that each land use category must have one or more corresponding zone districts, and development standards • and land use regulations in the zoning ordinance must reflect the policies in the General Plan. While General Plan discussion of permitted land uses and development intensities is by nature somewhat general, the zoning ordinance provides the specificity property owners and developers seek in identif ing how particular properties can be used and developed. Table 2- 5 identifies the relationships between land use categories and zone districts in Rosemead. The Zoning Ordinance will be amended to include the mixed-use land use categories. P A G E 2- 2 q ( M A R C H 3 1 . 2 0 1 o Deleted: 1 Policy 5.7: Require that future projects in Mixed-Use designated areas east of Rosemead Place incorporate the highest quality design and construction standards to assure use, function, and circulation compatibility between the existing and proposed uses.1 0 L A N D U S E • Table Z-5 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency is Corresponding Zone General Plan Land Use Cate orv (a) Districts (b) L.DR Ww Density Residential R-t P-D MDR Medium Density Residential R-2 P-D R-3 HDR High Density Residential PP=D P-0 D-O C-1 P-D C Commercial C-3 P CBD D-O HIC Hi h Intensity Commercial -C CBD P MRC Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial RC-MUDO D-O P-D C- Mixed-Use CBD P MHRC High Density RC-ML'D( D-O Residential Commercial P-D C P-D D-0 ABC Mixed-Use-Industrial/Commercial P M-1 C3 C-3 P-D OLd Office/Light Industrial P-0 D-O M-1 PF Public Facilities All Zones Os Open S ace Natural Resources O-S CEM Cemeten 0-S Notes: a) This table compares the General Plan land use categories with the zoning districts and overlay districts. It is anticipated that the Zoning Ordinance will be updated and these zoning districts, shown here, may be changed. b) Zone Districts: R-t: Single Family Residential RC-ML?DO: Residential/Commercial Mixed _R-2: Medium Multi-Density Residential Development Overlay _R-3: Medium Multiple Residential _C-i: Neighborhood Commercial CI-M: Commercial/Industrial Mixed _C-3: Medium Commercial OS: Open Space C-1: Recional Commercial P-D: Planned Development _CBD: Central Business District D-O: Design Overlay _P-O: Professional Office _M-i: Light Manufacturing Deleted: RC-M - - - - - - - - - Deleted: V-M P A G E s- z g 0 L A N D U S E 0 Development Capacity Table 2-6 identifies the planned distribution of land uses resulting from implementation of the Land Use Plan. Over time, as properties transition from one use to another or property owners rebuild, land uses and intensities will gradually shift to align with the intent of this Land Use Element. Table 2-6 summarizes the land use distribution, typical level of development anticipated, and the resultant residential and nonresidential levels of development that can be expected from full implementation of land use policies established by this General Plan. Given the almost built-out character of Rosemead, significant redevelopment activities may not occur over the life of this General Plan. Average development densities and potential presented in Table 2-3 reflect primarily established densities, with limited opportunities for recycling to more intensified development. As shown in the Table 2-5, the estimated population for Rosemead is approximately i 8o in approximately j5:sW4 housing units.--- P A G E z- 2 6 M A R C H %j. z o 1 0 11Deleted: 80.390 Deleted: 531 Deleted: 20,740 Deleted: 38 0 L A D U S E • • Table 2-6 Land Use and Population Estimates for General Plan Build Out General Plan Land Use Net Estimated Density/ Estimated Estimated Estimated Category Acres Intensity Dwelling Population Potential (a) Units (b) Square Feet LDR Low Density Residential ; 7.0 DU/AC ;n o MDR Medium Density Residential 5- 8.5 DU/AC 4,93; ig,o%_ 0 - - HDR High Density Residential l 19.8 DU AC 8.86 0 C Commercial o. FAR o o - o HIC High lnten~,itA' Commercial Iq o,3g FAR 0 Q 270.000 OLI Office/Light Industrial 0.42 FAR o 0 2,400,000 Mixed-Use o DU AC; MRC Residential/Commercial .c5 ifioFAR z2a _ 7•g5S__ _ s8a.ooa- (c) MHR Mixed=Use_High Density 44o DU/AC; C Residential/ Commercial 19 _ 00 FAR 2 _ i t - - 54 62 - - "ooo_ (d) . MIC Mixed-Use - Indu_stria]/Commercial 16 1.00 FAR - - o - - - - o - ,;.66aooo - PF Public Facilities _ N/A o 0 0 OS Open Space/Natural 83 N/A o 0 0 Resources CEM Cemetery 4 N/A o 0 0 Total 2,Ci'~8 f - - 25,22A _ 61.A89, Notes: a) DU/AC: _ Poeulati 3.02% a Mixed:L d) Mixed_L FAR: Floor Area Ratio. Table 2-7 summarizes the projected dwelling units, estimated population, and estimated square footage for existing conditions in _ ( , and what the Land Use Plan of the General_ Plan .Sill yield at build out. Deleted: 95 Deleted: 6,E Deleted: 25 Deleted: 56 Deleted: 81, Deleted: 8.t Deleted: 97 14 Deleted: i.9 Deleted: 7,4 DWel : 62 I Deleted: S8 Deleted: 49 Deleted: 1 Deleted: o Deleted: 13: Deleted: 25 Deleted: Deleted: 1,7 Deleted: 6,F Deleted: 4,9 r Deleted: 36 Deleted: 22, Deleted: 5,5 Deleted: 2 X0.260.000 I Deleted: 9 Deleted:3 Deleted: 3 Deleted: 5 j a vacancy rate of ~ : $ x, Deleted: S ommercial mix. Del: { 1 Deleted: b Deleted:9 Deleted: 7 Deleted: c Deleted: 5 Deleted: 5 Deleted: T Deleted: 2006 Deleted: 8 P A G E 2- 2 7 0 L A N D U S E • Table 2-7 Development and Population - 2009 Conditions and General Plan Dwelling Population Square Feet of i nits Nonresidential • Existing 2OaA Development (al -14 - - R7-194 7,41Q99o - General Plan Land Use Polio' d5. t So X0.2( n.ono . 1 Estimated Increasein a,66 .3,25O 000 _ _ Development Deleted: 8 Deleted: 648 Deleted: 02 Deleted: 56,578 Deleted: 422 Deleted: 6 Deleted: 940 Deleted: Baseline (2006) Notes. a) D%veLne units and R4Fulation estimates are from the 2ooa California Deleted: X0.738 Department of Finance. Demopaohic Unit. Square Feet of Nonresidential is Deleted: 38 bred can CIS data. Deleted: 80.385 Deleted: 779 Implementation Deleted: 14,350,c Deleted: 6,090 Actions 1 Deleted: 236 :23,8x, The follov-ing actions %%ill implement Land Use Element Deleted:4,357 policies and prmide guidance to City decision makers, staff, Deleted: and the public. Each action relates directly to one or more Deleted:4-0 policies Goal is Stable and attractive single-family residential neighborhoods. Action is Rex-ise the Zoning Map and zoning ordinance to proN ide consistency between the map and the General Plan. Action 1.2 Enhance code enforcement program to require property owners to maintain their homes and property. Action 1.3 Use zoning regulations, and design guidelines, and design re%ietti to require new residential development use detailed architectural articulations and to pro,,ide adequate buffering P A G E 2- 2 8 M A R C. H " 1. 2 0 1 0 0 L A N D U S E between lower density residential uses and non- residential uses. Action 1.4 Conduct a housing and neighborhood survey to determine those areas that: Are strong and should be maintained as they exist today. Typically in these areas the housing is well maintained and has good architectural design and site design; the neighborhood has sidewalks, landscaping, and is pedestrian friendly and safe. These neighborhoods should be maintained through continued code enforcement; new development should be designed to respect existing setbacks, neighborhood character, architectural style and materials, etc. Are encouraged to revitalize through the introduction of new or renovated housing stock that is designed to promote a higher quality of architectural and site design. This may include impro%ing housing materials, architectural design, site orientation, parking and garage location, setbacks, landscape requirements, etc. Action 1.5 Develop a series of design guidelines and standards to facilitate strong housing and neighborhood maintenance for the appropriate neighborhoods as determined by Action 1.4. Action 1.6 Develop housing and neighborhood design guidelines and standards for those areas (as determined by Action 1.4) that should be encouraged to be revitalized, renovated, and remodeled. In addition, establish new design guidelines that restrict mansionization. Action 1.7 Consult with the AQMD when siting new facilities with dust, odor emissions to avoid siting those facilities near sensitive receptors and avoiding siting sensitive receptors near sours of air pollution. Goal 2: Fi-panded opportunity for concentrated commercial and industrial uses that contribute jobs and tar revenues to the community Deleted: Action 1.7 Establish reviews criteria in the zoning ordinance (Title 17 of the Municipal Code) for new residential development, remodeling, and/or additions so that all new residential innstniction is sensitise to surroundingstructures. T P A G E 2- 2 9 M A R C N rt t. 2 o t o 0 L A N D U S E • Action 2.1 Prepare a specific plan. development standards, and/or design guidelines to plan for future development and for both private and public realm design features in the High Intensity Commercial areas. Action 2.2 Create incentive programs to encourage the renovation and rehabilitation of older commercial areas. Action 2.3 Prepare a specific plan. design guidelines. and'or development standards to -plan for existing de\elopment's re\italziation and for future development and to plan for both private and puhlic realm design features in the Mixed_ Use .i r .r located j \'alle\- Boulevard between Walnut Grove and Rosemead Boulevard. Action 2.4 Implement the Rosemead Downtown Vision Plan or other urban design plans, if adopted by the City Council, for new projects and the rehabilitation and revitalization of existing development on Valley Boulevard. Action 2.5 Prepare development standards encouraging the inclusion of public plazas and spaces in new and existing commercial areas. Action 2.6 Develop a marketing program that identifies needed commercial goods and services; actively • pursue such businesses to locate within existing commercial and new mixed-use areas. Goal 3 Creation of vibrant, attractive mixed-use development Action 3.1 Encourage, whenever appropriate, land use conversion from marginal commercial, industrial or residential uses to mixed-use development along major arterials in areas of the City designated for Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial. Mixed-use development of this type should be encouraged when a proposal Hill result in the following: ■ The assembling of existing lots; ■ A reduction of the number of access points or "curb cuts" along an arterial; P A G E 2- 3 0 MARCH A j. 2 0 r o Deleted: outline Deleted: zone Deleted: a) the intersection of Garvey Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard, and b) for the intersection of 0 L A N D U S E • ■ No negative impact on surrounding land uses. Criteria for evaluating a proposal within these guidelines could include: • Conformanceto_ Residential/Commercial Zlixed-Use development standards a114 adopted ?v4ixed-Use Design Guidelines. Action 3.2 Require an integrally-colored decorative six foot tall CMU block wall, landscaped buffers with mature landscaping, and/or a vine-covered wall, on those sides abutting a residentially zoned area. Agreements between property owners should he encouraged whereby the applicant installs the wall and/or landscaping and the adjacent property owner maintains it because the wall is on their property. The landscaped buffer strip will have a minimum width of three feet between the property line wall and adjacent property. Action 3.3 Encourage land use conversions to commercial uses, particularly along major arterials, only when a proposal: ■ Assembles contiguous lots; ■ Limits the number of curb cuts along major arterials; ■ Pro-ides adequate on-site parking and on- site circulation; • Operates in conformance with the City's Noise Ordinance and other applicable environmental regulations; and ■ Will not negatively impact surrounding land uses. Action 3.4 Whenever and wherever possible, encourage the grouping of certain hypes of commercial activities that would benefit from this type of a development. Action 3.5 To maximize commercial synergy and to minimize the development of small, stand alone commercial buildings, such as mini-malls, direct new commercial development smaller than 5,00o square feet of gross floor area to shopping centers with a combined floor area of at least 15,000 square feet. This implementation action P A G E 2- 3 r I I. 2 0 1 0 Deleted: <0>A minimum lot size of one acre (43,56o square 0 1 <*>Two curb cuts per development with minimum driveway width or 0 L A N D U S E shall not preclude the development of or • discriminate against small businesses in established commercial areas. Action 3.6 Require owners to maintain their property according to current codes and ordinances. Action 3.7 Apply design standards for industrial and commercial uses City Aide. Action 3.8 During the site development re%iew process, require attractive and revenue generating ground-floor retail uses for all mixed-use projects. Goal 4: A financially healthy City that can meet residents' desires for public services and facilities Action 4.1 Inventory structures and parcels in industrial areas available for redevelopment, and incorporate this information into a guide or book to be distributed to industrial real estate brokers and developers. Action 4.2 The City Rill restrict industrial actiNities that may result in significant and detrimental environmental impacts to the City and its residents. The significance will be determined through the preparation of a CEQA Initial Study • (IS) and am. subsequent environmental analysis. Goal 5: Targeted land use changes that improve housing and economic opportunities for residents and businesses and achieve City fiscal and environmental objectives. Action 5.1 Develop design standards for the Rosemead Square site that enhance freeway %isibility and access. Action 5.2 Underground utilities in commercial areas and require developers to contribute. Action 5.3 Promote art in public places and require developers to contribute. Action 5.4 Ensure that new developments incorporate both local and regional transit measures into project P A G E z- 3 z M A R C H a i . z o i o 0 L A N D U S E • design that promote the use of alternative modes of transportation and/or construct, contribute or dedicate land for the provision of on-site bicycle trails linking the facility to designated bicycle commuting routes. Action 5.5 Ensure that new developments construct buildings that exceed minimum statewide energy construction requirements beyond Title 24 energy requirements. Action 5.6 In new residential developments, promote and/or provide incentives for the use of Energy- Star rated appliances. Action 5.7 Promote the use of shade producing trees, particularly those that shade paved surfaces such as streets and parking lots and buildings. These strategies will minimize the heat island effect and thereby reduce the amount of air conditioning required. Action 5.8 Encourage new development to employ passive heating and cooling design strategies to the extent feasible. Strategies to be considered include orientation; natural ventilation, including cross-ventilation in residential units; high insulation values, energy efficient windows including: high performance glass; light-colored or high-albedo (reflective) roofing and exterior walls; window shading; and landscaping that provides shading during appropriate seasons. Action 5.9 Encourage new developments to implement U.S. EPA Certified WaterSense labeled or equivalent faucets and high-efficiency toilets (HETs) in residential uses, and implement water conser%ing shower heads to the extent feasible. Action 5.io Consider targeting local funds, including redevelopment_Community Development Block Grant, and HOMF Investment Partnership funds. to assist affordable housing developers in - - - - - - - - - - - - - Deleted: resources incorporating energy efficient designs and features. Action 5.11 Strengthen local building codes for new construction and renovation to require a higher level of energy efficiency. P A G E 2 - 3 3 0 L A N D U S E Action 5.12 Encourage all new government buildings, and all • major renovations and additions, meet identified green building standards. Action 5.13 Consider adopting a "Green Building Program- requiring or encouraging green building practices and materials. The program could be implemented through, e.g., a set of green building ordinances. Action 5.14 Encourage the orientation of buildings to maximize passive solar heating during cool seasons, avoid solar heat gain during hot periods, enhance natural ventilation, and promote effective use of daylight. Orientation should optimize opportunities for on-site solar generation. Action 5.15 Consider to provide permitting-related and other incentives for energy efficient building projects, e.g., by giNing green projects priorith in plan review, processing and field inspection services. Action 5.16 Consider adopting a "heat island" mitigation plan that requires cool roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees. Action 5.17 Consider expanding building permit enforcement to include re-roofing thereby ensuring compliance with existing state building requirements for cool roofs on non-residential 40 buildings. Action 5.18 Strengthen local building codes for new construction and implement a program to renovate existing buildings to require a higher level of water efficiency. Action 5.19 Consider adopting energy and water efficiency retrofit ordinances that require upgrades as a condition of issuing permits for renovations or additions, and on the sale of residences and buildings. Action 5.2o Discourage projects that impede bicycle and walking access, e.g., large parking areas that cannot be crossed by non-motorized vehicles, and new residential communities that block through access on existing or potential bicycle and pedestrian routes. P A G E 2- 3 4 I MARCH a 1 2 o l o 0 • 11 0 C I R C U L A T I O N • 3 TION KOSEMEAD GENERAL FLAN The Circulation Element addresses anticipated mobility needs, and the ability of the roadway network and the various transportation modes to meet future travel demands through the buildout year of the Land Use Element (2025). Incremental increases in • development intensity increase the use of local and regional roadways by passenger vehicles and trucks. The plan and policies presented in this Element identify strategies that the City will pursue to maintain good senice levels wherever possible. ' As local roadway facilities are linked to regional roadways, the policies within this Element highlight Rosemead's continued need to work within the region and with neighboring jurisdictions to alleviate traffic congestion. Reduced dependency on the automobile for hTical trips supports these objectives and improves overall environmental quality in terms of noise and air quality. As there are alternatives to the passenger vehicle, this Element examines the transportation options available to Rosemead residents and establishes appropriate policies to promote diverse trip modes. California State law requires that each city undertake a periodic rexiew of its General Plan. The law also requires an update of the Circulation Element as part of the overall process. The P A G E 3- t M A R C H z o, o 0 C I R C U L A T I O N • specific code sections and the related requirements are as follows: • Government Code Section 65302 (b): (The general plan shall include) a circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. • Government Code Section 95303: The general plan may address any other subjects, which, in the judgment of the legislative body, relate to the physical development of the county or city. Relationship to Other Elements According to California planning law, the Circulation Element must be independent but consistent 1+ith other elements. The Circulation Element is most closeh. related to the land Use Element, as changes in trip patterns and increases in local trip generation are caused by increases in land use intensity over time. The planned development areas identified in the land Use Element served as the basis for the analysis of future traffic levels, and then needed roadway improvements were identified. • Implementation of the Circulation Element ensures that existing transportation facilities will be improved to adequately serve traffic generated by future development, where the improvements are both warranted and feasible. Additionally, projected noise contours from transportation sources are included in the Noise Element. Other Plans Regional Transportation Plan The Regional Transportation Plan is a component of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to address regional issues, goals, objectives, and policies into the middle of the 21st century. The Plan, which SCAG periodically updates to address changing conditions, has been developed P A G E 3 - - 0 C I R C U L A T 1 0 N • with active participation from local agencies throughout the region, elected officials, the business community, community groups, private institutions, and private citizens. The Plan sets broad goals for the region and provides strategies to.reduce problems related to congestion and mobility. Congestion Management Plan The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or officially known as "Metro") is responsible for planning and operating regional transit facilities and services in Los Angeles County. As required by State law, Metro prepares a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for Los Angeles County. The CMP identifies the future regional transportation network, establishes acceptable senice levels for network routes, and identifies strategies to reduce congestion. Local jurisdictions within the County are responsible for implementing the CMP. The CMP roadway network includes the following roadways that serve Rosemead: • San Bernardino Freeway (Interstate to) • Pomona Freeway (State Route 6o) • Rosemead Boulevard (State Route 19) In addition, the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard at Valle}, Boulevard is classified as a CMP arterial monitoring station. The performance of this intersection is regularly tracked for CMP report updates. I* Air Quality Management Plan The federal Clean Air Act requires preparation of plans to improve air quality in any region designated as a non- attainment area (A non-attainment area is a geographic area identified by the Environmental Protection Agency and/or California Air Resources Board as not meeting State or federal standards for a given pollutant). The plan must outline specific programs, strategies, and timelines for bringing the area into compliance with air quality standards. The Air Quality Management Plan prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, first adopted in 1994 and updated on a three-year cycle, contains policies and measures designed to achieve federal and State standards for healthier air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. Many of the programs address circulation improvements, since fossil-fuel-powered vehicles account for more than 6o percent of the nitrogen oxide emissions and 70 percent of the carbon monoxide emissions within the Basin. ~ PAGE 3 - 3 Qyng. M A R C H l i. 2o to u C I R C U L A T I O N • Roadway Classifications Roadways within Rosemead, as in any typical urbanized area, are defined using a hierarchical classification system. Each type of roadway is generally described by purpose and capacity. Rosemead's circulation system is defined by five types of roadway facilities, for which the general standards are described below. Freeways Freeways are controlled access, high-speed roadways with grade-separated interchanges. They are intended to carry high volumes of traffic from region to region. The planning, design, construction, and maintenance of freeways in California are the responsibility of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Interstate Io - The San Bernardino Freewav is a six-lane freeway with high-occupancy vehicle lanes in both directions. The facility bisects the commercial/retail areas of the city. Interstate to provides a full-access interchange with Interstate 710 (Long Beach Freeway) approximately four miles to the west, and also with Interstate 605 (San Gabriel River Freeway) approximately four miles to the east. Via Interstate to, direct access is provided to Los Angeles. on the west and San Bernardino County on the east. State Route 6o - The Pomona Freeway traverses the southern end of Rosemead, with an interchange at San Gabriel Boulevard. The facility generally parallels the San Bernardino • Freeway and has nearby interchanges with the Interstate Ito and Interstate 605 freeways. Major Arterials The function of a Major Arterial is to connect traffic from minor arterials and collectors to other parts of the city, freeway interchanges, and adjacent major land uses. They are the principal urban thoroughfares and provide a linkage between activity centers in the City and to adjacent communities. Major Arterials are designed to move large volumes of traffic, typically in the range of 40,000 to 6o,ooo vehicles per day. They are generally served by regional transit routes and are the primary truck routes in the community. There are currently four Major Arterials within the City of Rosemead: Valley Boulevard, Garvey Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard, and Rosemead Boulevard. P A G E 3- 4 MARCH j j. z o o 0 C I R C U L A T 1 0 N Minor Arterials The primary purpose of Minor Arterials is to serve as an intermediate route carrying traffic between local streets and major arterials. They are designed to carry moderate levels of traffic, generally in the range of 15,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day. Within Rosemead, these roadway facilities were previously referred to as Secondary Arterials. The roadway plan within this Element introduces the Minor Arterial designation, as it is a more descriptive name for the function of these facilities. Minor Arterials within the City include Del Mar Avenue, Graves Avenue, New Avenue, Rush Street, Temple City Boulevard, Lower Azusa Road, Mission Drive, and Walnut Grove Avenue. These well-placed streets complete the well-balanced arterial circulation system, which the City has constructed to provide an efficient flow of traffic to places of importance while protecting residential neighborhoods. Collector Roads The primary function of a collector street is to connect a neighborhood area with nearby arterials. Collector roads are intended to move traffic between local streets and arterials and commonly carry less than 15,000 vehicles per day. Roadways classified as collector streets include Encinita Avenue, Grand Avenue, Hellman Avenue, Ivar Avenue, Loftus Drive, Marshall Street, Muscatel Avenue, Ramona Boulevard, Rio Hondo Avenue, and Rosemead Place. • Local Streets Local streets are designed to principally provide vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access to individual parcels throughout the City. They are intended to carry low volumes of traffic, and are typically two-lane roadways. - The established hierarchy of roadway facilities within Rosemead is illustrated within Figure 3-1. PAGE 3 -5 4 2,91 M A R C H ii. z o i o 0 C I R C U L A T I O N 0 Figure 3-1: Existing Roadway Classifications P A G E 3- 6 MARCH 11, z o i o 0 C I R C U L A T I O N • Measurement of Traffic Flow The traffic study for this element was primarily based on two traffic engineering concepts - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values and Level of Senice (LOS) values. Both of these are used to measure the adequacy of roadway facilities, but the ICU methodology was specifically developed to gauge the operations at signalized roadway intersections. The ICU methodology is based on specific calculations that include the number of approach lanes and approach volumes by turning movement. The ICU output value correlates directly with a more common term in traffic engineering, the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. Traffic volumes for existing conditions at the analyzed locations are defined by traffic counts, conducted manually at roadway intersections or by automatic tube counters at mid-block roadway segments. Traffic volumes for future or forecast conditions are defined by annual increases in ambient/area traffic and specific traffic increases calculated for planned land use intensity/use changes under the Land Use Element. Capacity refers to the maximum vehicle carrying ability of a roadway, and is a critical component of roadway design. A roadway that carries 16,ooo vehicles per day, with the capacity to accommodate 20,000 Vehicles within the same timeframe, has a V/C value of 0.8o for the analyzed time period. • The V/C Value is used in turn to establish Level of Service (LOS) categories describing the performance of roadways and intersections throughout the community. Six categories of LOS - the letter designations A to F - are used to identify traffic conditions, with LOS A representing excellent conditions and LOS F representing extreme congestion. For roadways, the LOS designations are based on V/C ratios calculated based on the roadway's capacity at the LOS E/LOS F threshold of I.oo. Table 3-1 provides V/C ranges, the corresponding LOS, and a description of expected traffic conditions for roadway segments. For intersections, LOS is based on Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) ratios, which take into account the volume-to- capacity ratios of all of the critical turning movements that take place at an intersection. Table 3-2 prolides ranges of ICU values (equivalent to V/C values), the corresponding LOS, and a description of expected traffic conditions for intersections PAGE 3 - ; ~~rO1 M A R C H 2 0 1 0 0 C I R C U L A T I O N • Table 3.1 Level of Service Descriptions for Roadways Level Volume of to servic Capacity e Flow Conditions Ratio A LOS A describes primarih free-flow operations at average travel speeds, o-o.6o usually about go percent of the free-flow speed for the arterial classification. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Stopped delays at signalized intersections are minimal. B LOS B represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel o.61-0.70 speeds, usually about 70 percent of the free-flow speed for the arterial classification. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to appreciable tension. C LOS C represents stable operations; however, ability to maneuver and 0.71-0.80 change lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than at LOS B, and longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both map contribute to lower average speeds of about so percent of the average free-flow speed for the arterial classification. Motorists will experience appreciable tension while driving. D LOS D borders on a range in which small increases in flow may cause a o.81-o.qo substantial increase in delay and hence decreases in arterial speed. LOS D may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or some combination of these factors. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of free-flow speed. E LOS E is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of o.9t-r.oo one-third the free-flow speed or less. Such operations are caused by some combination of adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. F LOS F characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds below one-third to Over t.oo one-fourth of the free-flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high delays and extensive queuing. Adverse progression is frequently a contributor to this condition. P A G E 3- 8 MARCH 1 1. z o l o 0 C I R C U L A T] O N • Table 3.2 Level of Service Descriptions for Signalized Intersections Intersection Capacity Level of Utilization (ICU) Service Description Ratio A Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear o-0.60 quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. B Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form. C Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more than 6o seconds, and back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. D Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no long-standing traffic queues. This level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods. E Poor operation. Some long-standing vehicular queues develop on critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several minutes. F Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups form • locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow. 0.61-0.70 0.71-0.80 0.81-0.90 0.91-1.00 Over t.oo Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1985 and Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, NCHRP Circular 212, 1982. Formatted: Left 7i P A G E 3- 9 0 C I R C U L A T I O N Future Circulation Issues The local circulation system within Rosemead has evolved over time to prolide travel routes for both local and regional trips. Major roadways proiide access to the I-io freeway and the State Route (SR) 6o freeway. The I-io and SR-6o freeways are both east-west trending facilities within the city that have access ramps at major north-south roadways. These freeways link Rosemead residents and businesses to destinations throughout the Los Angeles area and the Southern California region. Rosemead Boulevard, Walnut Grove Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard, and Del Mar Avenue are the major north-south roadways within the City. All four major north-south roads proiide connections to Interstate 10. In addition, San Gabriel Boulevard connects to SR-6o within the southern area of the city. Valley Boulevard, Gan•ey Avenue, Graves Avenue, and Rush Street are the major east-west roadways within the City. Although these arterials often act as relief valves to the freeways during peak commute periods, they also proiide good alternative travel routes to destinations throughout the San Gabriel Valley. A safe and convenient circulation system is needed to support the variety of land uses in Rosemead and to manage through traffic that originates in and is destined for locations outside • the City. Four major issues are addressed by the goals, policies, and implementation actions of the Circulation Element: (r) Efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians throughout the city; (2) Promoting alternative modes of travel; (3) Separating traffic associated with. commercial and industrial uses from residential neighborhoods; and (4) Ensuring that adequate parking exists for all commercial and industrial development. P A G E 3- t o MARCH ti. z o i o 0 C I R C U L A T I O N • Future Land Use Intensification Development outside of the City limits will generate additional increases in area traffic volumes. Such development has been incorporated into the ambient annual growth rate within the Circulation Element traffic analysis, added to existing volumes and compounded over the period between existing (Near 200 and future buildout (vear 2025) conditions. Traffic generated from developments envisioned under the updated Land Use Element was added to the analysis after the creation of future ambient growth volumes. Relationship of Trip Generation to Land Use Makeup All development creates vehicle trips of some measurable total per unit of intensity (floor area increment or residential unit). The trip generation methodology used within the traffic study, and the assumptions utilized for trip reductions, are discussed below. The potential for increased use of transit, bicycles, or other trip modes was not included in the analysis in order to provide a conservative estimate of impacts. Conservative Nature of Development Analysis The trip generation totals used within the traffic analysis prepared for the Circulation Element update were conservative, both by design and by necessity. The traffic analysis • methodology was designed to plan for a conservative level of trip generation from each area of intensified development that would be allowed under the updated Land Use Element. It is also necessary to provide this consenative analysis, as additional trip generation reductions, beyond those taken for ymixed-use developments (discussed below) cannot be substantiated without intense transit service levels or established and active trip reduction programs. With increasing land use densities that commonly occur during the maturation of an urban-area city, there is an increasing potential for higher transit use or an increasing potential for higher percentage shares of walking trips and bicycle trips. Infrastructure and programs must support these changes in trip patterns, however. As Rosemead is entering a new phase of urbanization through establishment of major mixed-use centers within the updated Land Use Element and the current predominant makeup of the City is lower density, single-use developments, credits were only taken for internal trip capture between uses within mixed- - P A G E 3- 1 1 M A R C H 11, s o l o 0 C I R C U L A T I O N use projects and for pass-by or linked trips. These deductions, typical to traffic studies, are based on national standards for related trip reductions and characteristics. Pass-by reductions were taken for commercial retail trips during the p.m. peak hour only. These reductions were based on typical percentages of these occurrences (unplanned side trips that take place between a planned or regular daily origin and destination). These primary trips already exist on the area roadways, and the pass-by trips would become an additional linked trip along the route of the overall primary trip, so these are not included in the impact calculations. Additional reductions were taken for internal trip capture within mixed-use developments. There are multiple mixed-use project zones envisioned within the updated Land Use Element. These mixed-use developments - most typically consisting of retail and residential uses in one building - capture some residential-to-commercial trip demand internally and such trips are therefore not generated on area roadways. Further trip reductions were not taken. A methodology that established trip reduction estimates for developments along transit corridors are proNided within the CMP document. However, existing transit levels within Rosemead, and transit levels envisioned for the near future, would not support the use of these additional trip reductions in the analysis. Potential Trip Generation Intensity Reductions The synergy that is possible between multiple mixed-use and higher-density development projects has not been factored into the trip generation calculations. When this synergy occurs, more walking trips occur between different nearby developments and more non-auto trips can be generated. These aspects, however, are difficult to estimate at the level of analysis undertaken for the cin~ %Nide traffic study conducted for this Element. In addition, estimates for such reductions can only be defined through surveys at similar uses which were not conducted for this macro-level analysis. As trip reductions for these hypes of trips were not taken, the analysis provides a conservative (or worst-case) estimate of potential traffic impacts. Traffic Circulation Analysis According to the Circulation Element Update traffic impact study report, completed by KOA Corporation on ebruarv tq, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Deleted: May 20g_ multiple_ roadway segments and major intersections _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - Deleted: .s would operate at LOS values of E or F in the year 2025 with P A G E 3- 1 z MARCH . z o t o C I R C U L A T I O N implementation of land use intensification that would be allowed by the updated Land Use Element of the General Plan. Table 3-3 provides a summary of future conditions with the projected General Plan land use development, without the proposed circulation roadway network improvements, as analyzed within the traffic study. Within the table headings, the term "V/C" refers to the calculated volume-to-capacity ratio pro+ided by the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis methodology. Values of I.ooo or greater define at-capacih operations. The term "LOS" refers to the related level of senice values, ranging from A to F. is p PAGE 3 - ~ 3 tll ! M A R C H z o, o • • C I R C U L A T I O N Table 3-3 Future (year 2025) Area Intersection Levels of Service I i AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ntersect on Vic LOS Vic LOS I Walnut Grove Ave at Mission Dr. 0.858 D 0.871 D 2 Rosemead Blvd, at Lower Azusa Rd. 0.889 D 0.942 E 3 Rosemead Blvd. at Mission Dr. 1.220 F LISS F 4 Walnut Grove Ave, at Valley Blvd. 1.132 F 1.171 F 5 Rosemead Blvd. at Valley Blvd. 1.155 F 1.123 F 6 Valley Blvd. at Mission Dr. 0.615 B 0.614 B 7 Valley Blvd. at Rio Hondo Ave. 0.631 B 0.929 E 8 Valley Blvd. at Temple City Blvd. 1.079 F 0.942 E 9 Walnut Grove Ave. at Marshall Sc 1.432 F 1.586 F 10 Rosemead Blvd. at Marshall St. 1.051 F I A07 F I I Rosemead Blvd. at Glendon Way 1.005 F 0.898 D 12 Temple City Blvd. at Loftus Dr. 0.799 C 0.952 E 13 Del Mar Ave. at Hellman Ave. 0.958 E 0.898 D 14 San Gabriel Blvd. at Hellman Ave. 1.014 F 0.906 E 15 Walnut Grove Ave. at He11maNRamona 0.989 E 1.207 F 16 Rosemead Blvd. at Telstar Ave. 0.931 E 1.056 F 17 Rosemead Blvd. at Whitmore Sc 0.742 C 0.831 D 18 New Ave. at Garvey Ave. 0.916 E 1.013 F 19 Del Mar Ave. at Garvey Ave. 0.948 E 1.084 F 20 San Gabriel Blvd. at Garvey Ave. 1.078 F 1.123 F 21 Walnut Grove Ave. at Garvey Ave. F 1.143 F 22 San Gabriel Blvd. at Rush StJPotrero Grande A 0.776 C 23 Walnut Grove Ave. at Rush St. B 0.741 C 24 Walnut Grove Ave. at Landis View Ln. M A 0.507 A 25 Walnut Grove Ave. at San Gabriel Blvd. E 1.069 F 26 San Gabriel Blvd. at SR-60 WB Ramps E 0.921 E 27 Town Center Dr. at SR-60 EB Ramps 0.628 B 0.649 B 28 San Gabriel Blvd. at Town Center Dr. 0.750 C 0378 C i i i i i i i i i ' Projected General Plan land use development with out General Plan circulation roadway network improvements. P A G E 3- a 4 MARCH a s 2010 Formatted: hsstified i Intersection I Walnut Grove Ave i 2 Rosemead Blvd. at 3 Rosemead Blvd. at 4 Walnut Grove Ave 5 Rosemead Blvd. at 6 Valley Blvd. at Miss 7 Valley Blvd. at Rio I 8 Valley Blvd. at Tern 9 Walnut Grove Ave 10 Rosemead Blvd. at I I Rosemead Blvd. at 12 Temple City Blvd.: 13 Del Mar Ave. at He 14 San Gabriel Blvd. at 15 Walnut Grove Ave 16 Rosemead Blvd. at 17 Rosemead Blvd. at 18 New Ave. at Garve 19 Del Mar Ave. at Ge 20 San Gabriel Blvd. at 21 Walnut Grove Ave 22 San Gabriel Blvd. at 23 Walnut Grove Ave 24 Walnut Grove Ave 25 Walnut Grove Ave 26 San Gabriel Blvd. at 27 Town Center Dr. a Deleted: 28 San Gabriel Blvd. at • C 1 R C U L A T 1 0 N • The following degradations in intersection peak-hour LOS values would occur with full implementation of the updated Land Use Element: • Vallev Blvd. at Rio Hondo Ave. - Op erations would worsen from LOS D to E within the p.m. peak hour. • Walnut Grove Ave at Marshall St. - Op erations would worsen from LOS E to F,+ithin the a.m. peak hour. • Rosemead Blvd. at Marshall St. - Operations would worsen from LOS E to F Within the a.m peak hour. • Rosemead Blvd. at Glendon Wv. - Op erations would worsen from LOS E to F Within the a.m. peak hour. • San Gabriel Blvd. at Hellman Ave - Op erations would worsen from LOS E to F within the a.m. Mk hour and from LOS D to E in the p.m. peak hour. • Walnut Grove Ave at Hellman Ave./Ramona Ave. - OOnerations would worsen from LOS D to E within the a.m peak hour. • Rosemead Blvd at Telstar Ave. - Op erations would worsen from LOS D to E,+ithin the a.m. peak hour. would worsen from LOS D to E Within the a.m. peak hour. • San Gabriel Blvd. at SR-6o westbound ramps - • Operations would worsen from LOS D to E within th p.m. peak hour. c---------------------------------------------------------------------' Figure 3-2 illustrates the level of senice values at the study intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour for the future with General Plan development scenario without roadway improvements. Table 3-4 pro+ides the results of the level of senice calculations for each of the study roadway segments, based on this analysis scenario. LOS values of E or F are displayed in bold teat on the right side of the table. P A G E 3- 1 5 Deleted: ,,,Walnut Grove Avenue at Mission Drive - Operations would worsen from LOS D to E within the a.m. peak period and from LAS E to F within the p.m. peak period. 9 ,,,Rosemead Boulevard at Lower Azusa Road - Operations would worsen from LOS D to E within the a.m. peak period and from LAS E to F within the p.m. peak period. 9 Walnut Grave Avenue at Vallev Bouevard - Operations would worsen from LAS E to F within the a.m. peak period. 9 <,>Vallm Boulevard at Rio Hondo Avenue - Operations would worsen from LOS D to F within the p.m. peak period. 9 <,>Rosemead Boulevard at Glendon War - Operations would worsen from LOS E to F within the a.m. peak and p.m. peak periods. $ <,>Del Mar Avenue at Hellman Avtmo - Operations would worsen from LOS E to F within the a.m. peak period and from LOS C to E in the p.m. peak period. 9 cw> Walnut Grove Avenue at Hellman Avenue/RamOna Avenue - Operations would worsen from LAS E to F within the a.m. peak period. 9 <,>,New Avenue at Garver Avenue - Operations would worsen from LOS E to F within the a.m. peak period and tram LOS C to F within the pre. peak period. 9 <,>Del MarAvenue at Garvev Avenue - Operations would worsen from LAS B to E within the a.m. peak period and from LAS E to F within the p.m. peak period. ¶ <,>San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvev Avenue - Operations would worsen from LAS D to E within the a.m. peak period. 9 <#>Walnut Grove Avenue at Garvev Av ppg- Operations would worsen from LAS F. to F within the a.m. peak period S Walnut Grove Avenue at San Gabriel Boulevard -Operations would worsen from LOS D to E within the a.m. peak period S <,>San Gabriel Banle,ard at SR-6 westbound ramps - Operations would worsen from LOS E to F within the a.m. peak and p.m. peak periods. 9 <,>Sao Gabriel Boulevard at Town Center Drive - Operations would worsen from LOS D to E within the a.m. peak period. 9 0 • • C I R C U L A T I O N Table 3-4 Future (year 2025) Area Roadway Segment Levels of Service Prim Street Primary NIE End of Segment SIW End of Segment Roadway Class No. of Lanes Roadway Capacity Future (2025) w/ Development Volume VIC LOS I Walnut Grove Av Grand Ave Mssion Drive Secondary 4 30.DD0 15.608 0.520 A 2 Walnut Grove Av Wells/Edmond Valley Blvd Secondary 4 30,000 21,710 0724 C 3 Walnut Grove Av Valley Blvd Marshall St Secondary 4 30,000 30.614 1.020 F 4 Walnut Grove Av Hellman Ave Garvey Ave Secondary 4 30.000 29.107 0.970 E 5 Walnut Grove Av Fen Ave Klingerman St Secondary 4 30.000 22,982 0766 C 6 Walnut Grove Av Rush St Landis View Lane Secondary 4 30.000 20.322 0.677 B 7 San Gabriel Blvd Hellman Ave Emerson Place Major 4 40.000 36.520 0.913 E B San Gabriel Blvd Garvey Ave Klingerman St Major 4 40,000 26.000 0.650 B 9 San Gabriel Blvd Delta Ave Walnut Grove Ave Major 4 40.000 20.525 0.513 A 10 Del Mar Ave Hellman Ave Emerson Place Secondary 4 30.000 27.137 0.905 E II Del Mar Ave Garvey Ave Newmark Ave Collector 2 15.000 19,273 1.285 F 12 New Ave Newmark Ave Graves Ave Collector 2 15.000 9,467 0,631 B 13 Valley Bbd Musa.I Ave Ivar Ave Major 4 40,000 33.212 0.830 D 14 Valley Bbd Hart Ave Mission Drive Major 4 40.000 21,519 0.538 A 15 Valley Bbd Rio Hondo Ave Temple City Blvd Major 4 40000 31,573 0.789 C 16 Temple C, Blvd Valley Blvd Marshall St Secondary 4 30,000 25.WD 0.833 D 17 Garvey Ave New Ave Del Mar Ave Major 4 40.000 36,095 0.902 E 18 Garvey Ave Del Mar Ave San Gabriel Bbd Major 4 40.000 35.744 0.894 D 19 Garvey Ave San Gabriel Blvd Walnut Grove Ave Major 4 40,000 37,381 0.935 E 20 Ga Grove Ave Rosemead Blvd Major 4 40.000 32.88 0.818 D 21 R ausa Road Mission Drive Major 5 50,000 56,505 1.130 F 22 R lvd Marshall Sc Major 4 40.000 60,035 1.501 F 23 R Ave Whionore St Major 6 60,000 71.215 1.187 F f gjected General Plan land use development without General Plan elrewamm roadway neworK Improvements. P A G E 3- a 6 I M A R C If s a. 2 0 a 0 i i i i i Primary Street I Walnut Grove Av G 2 Walnut Grove Av N 3 Walnut Grove Av V. 4 Walnut Grove Av H 5 Walnut Grove Av Ft 6 Wait. Grew Av R. 7 San Gabriel Blvd H 8 San Gabriel Blvd G 9 San Gabriel Blvd D 10 Del Mar Ave H I I Del Mar Ave G 12 New Ave N 13 Valley Blvd M 14 Valley Bbd H 15 Valley Blvd RI 16 Temple City Blvd V. 17 Garvey Ave N 18 Garvey Ave D 19 Garvey Ave S 20 Garvey Ave N 21 Rosemead Blvd Li 22 Rosemead Bivd V. Deleted. 23 Rosemead Blvd T. 0 C I R C U L A T 1 O N • Figure 3-2 Level of Service Values at t St Study Intersections • ~\'I P A G E 3 - ~ MARCH I., z O i O 0 C I R C U L A T 1 O N • This page intentionally left blank. 0 P A G E 3- 1 8 M A R C H 11, 2010 0 C I R C U L A T I O N • The following degradations in roadway segment daily LOS values would occur with full implementation of the updated Land Use Element: • Walnut Grove Ave., between Vallev Blvd. and Marshall St - LOS would worsen from E to F Walnut Grove Ave.. between Hellman Ave. and Garvev Ave. - LOS would worsen from D to E Garvev Ave. between New Ave. and Del Mar Ave. -LOS would Worsen from C to E. Garvev Ave. between San Gabriel Blvd. and Walnut Grove Ave. -LOS would worsen from D to E. Figure 3-3 illustrates the levels of service based on the analyzed daily volumes at the study roadway segments, for the future with General Plan development scenario. Traffic Incursion onto Residential Roadways in residential neighborhoods, there is a growing trend to design and implement traffic control measures to enhance the livability for residents that live along local streets. Some of the control measures include speed humps, speed cushions, curb extensions, traffic diverters, chokers, and traffic circles. The intent of such measures is to slow traffic or prevent through traffic, which should remain on collector or arterial streets and not infiltrate residential neighborhoods. • This Element acknowledges the potential for significant traffic increases on residential roadways due to nearby intensification of corridor commercial or industrial development. P A G E S- t 9 M A R C H t t z o t o Deleted: Walnut Grove Avenue. between wells/Edmund and Valley Boulevard: LOS would worsen from D In E.1 San Gabriel Boulevard, between Hellman Avenue and Emerson Place: LOS would worsen from E to F.9 New Avenue, between Newmark Avenue and Groves Avenue: LOS would worsen from D to F. 5 Valley Boulevard, between Rio Hondo Avenue and Temple City Boulevard: LOS would worsen from C to F.9 Trent, City Boulevard, between Valley Boulevard and Marshall Street: LAS would worsen from D to F.9 Garvev Avenue, between New Avenue and Del Mardvenue: LOS would worsen from B to E. I Garvev Avenue, between Del Mar Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard: LOS would worsen from E to F. % Garvev Avenue, between San Gabriel Boulevard and Walnut Grove.Avenue: LOS would worsen from E to F. 9 Formatted: Highlight 0 C I R C O L A T 1 O N • Figure 3-3 Level of Senice Values - Study Roadway Segments, Future with General Plan Development P A G E 3- 2 0 M A R C H 1 1. 2 0 1 0 0 9 CJ Circulation Plan The goals and policies in this Element emphasize the need for a circulation system capable of serving the travel traffic needs within Rosemead. These needs are discussed within this section. General Plan Roadway System The updated roadway plan for the city is illustrated on Figure 3-4. The updates to the roadway plan are based on needs for increased roadway corridor capacity in the future analysis period with General Plan development, as identified by the Circulation Element update traffic study. Roadway improvements, outside of those required as mitigation for individual development projects, are prioritized, funded, and completed using the City's Capital Improvement Plan process. Many of the recommended mitigations for significant impacts of the Circulation Element update would need to be prodded by individual developments as they trigger impacts, or otherwise would need to be funded through the Capital Improvement Plan or another source. The Circulation Policy Plan for Rosemead is illustrated in Figure 3-4. This Plan includes the following roadway classification updates, for certain segments of these roadways, based on the recommended addition of lanes within this section: • Walnut Grove Avenue from the I-to freeway north to lrallev Boulevard= Reclassified from Minor Arterial to Major Arterial. _ For some roadways, an increase in the number of lanes does not translate to a change in classification (for example, a four- lane major arterial upgraded to a six-lane major arterial stays at the same classification). C I R C U I. A T 1 O N P A G E 3- z 1 M A R C H 1 1 , z o l o Formatted: Not Hghlight Deleted: <*,Tcm,1e City Bot levard from the I-to freexav north to Valley Boulev r - Reclassified from Minor Arterial to Major Arterial.5 9 ,,,Del Mar Avenue. south of the 1-m freexal. - Reclassified from Minor Arterial to Major Arterizl.9 is C I R C U L A T 1 O N • Figure 3-4 - Circulation Plan for Major Rosemead Roadways u P A G E 3- 2 2 MARCH .1. 2010 0 C 1 R C U L A T 1 0 N • Addressing Traffic Congestion Although marry of the policies within this Element concentrate on reducing trips and promoting alternate modes of travel within Rosemead, the base of any urban circulation system is a roadway network that provides enough capacity to avoid peak- period gridlock and allow for economic functions, resident/visitor and commercial customer access, and emergency access to continue in as efficient a manner as possible. The land area within Rosemead has not been developed within a vacuum. The city has grown up and urbanized along with the surrounding communities and the Southern California region as a whole. Traffic volumes will continue to increase on Rosemead, roadways whether local development is intensified or not. Capacity enhancements sill be necessarv to accommodate both regional trips that traverse Rosemead and for trips generated by new development within the city. Traffic congestion continues to be a key issue affecting the quality of life in Rosemead. Although Rosemead will experience limited growth outside of planned mixed-use project areas, regional influences will continue to contribute to traffic congestion. Over time, the City mill pursue two primary courses of action to improve congestion: (i) Focused physical improvements that enhance the • capacity of roadways and intersections; and (2) Creative programmatic solutions to manage trip generation and congestion. These two sets of actions are discussed further within the remainder of this section. Physical Capacity Improvements The first set of physical capacity, improvements that were evaluated for the Circulation Element update were aimed at reducing traffic congestion at major intersection approaches. Identified capacity improvements at major intersections, for implementation through the buildout analysis year of 2025, are listed within Table 3-5 below. P A G E 3- z 3 M A R C H + z o , o • C I R C U L A T I O N O Table 3-5 Identified Intersection Approach Improvements Intersection Recommended Intersection Improvement 3 Rosemead Blvd. at Mission Dr. NB & SB Nm lane: ES additional left cum lane 4 Walnut Grove Ave, at Valley Blvd. EB & WB ahrv lane 5 Rosemead Blvd. at Valley Blvd. NB & SB thm lane 9 Walnut Grove Ave. at Marshall Sc EB & W B left turn lane: NB right turn lane 10 Rosemead Blvd. at Marshall St NB & SB thru lane I 1 Rosemead Bbd. at Glendon Way SB shared thrv-right lane (near 1-10 on & off ramps) 14 San Gabnel Blvd. at Hellman Ave. Restripe SB shared thru-right lane to new chru lane and right turn lane 15 Walnut Grove Ave. at Hellman/Ramona Restripe right cum lane to EB shared left-thm-nght, and exclusive left turn 16 Rosemead Blvd. at Telmer Ave. NB thru are 18 New Ave. at Garvey Ave. WS thm lane 19 Del Mar Ave. at Garvey Ave. Restrict parking providing an additional ES & W8 thru lane 20 San Gabriel Blvd. at Garvey Ave. EB & WB thru lane 21 Walnut Grove Ave. at Garvey Ave. WB thru lane 25 Walnut Grove Ave. at San Gabnel Blvd. SB all-way into thru-right turn lane: new second left turn Also included in the analysis was the configuration of mid- block segments of major roadways. These also represent 40 capacity increases for the reduction of congestion. The identified physical improvements to major roadway corridors, for implementation through the buildout analysis year of 2025, are listed within Table 3-6 below. Table 3-6 Identified Roadway Segment Improvements IMPROVEMENT Primary Street NIE End of SIW End of Roadway No, or No. o/ Segment Segment Class Lanes Description Lanes 3 Walnut Grove Ay Valley Blvd Marshall St Secondary 4 On-meet wrwng mmowl would likely be r.qared. 6 on-meet paddng removal on wen care would Ur, be 21 Rosemead Blvd Lower Amsa Road Kosice Drive Major 5 6 vouren Wdemng and on-nrea wo.W Ilk* to wrlvng removal 22 Rosemead Blvd Valley Blvd Marshall St Major 4 B required 23 Rosemead Blvd Telmr Ave Whitmore St Major 6 widening would likely be requbed. B P A G Ii 3- 2 4 M .A R C H a a. 2 o a o I i i I i I I I I 1 1 I Intersection I Walnut Grove Ave 2 Rosemead Blvd. at L 3 Rosemead Blvd. at r 4 Walnut Grove Ave. 5 Rosemead Blvd. at \ 7 Valley Blvd. at Rio F 8 Valley Blvd. at Tem{ 9 Walnut Grove Ave. 10 Rosemead Blvd, at 1 I I Rosemead Blvd. at 12 Temple City Blvd. ai 13 Del Mar Ave. at Hel 14 San Gabriel Blvd. at 15 Walnut Grove Ave. 16 Rosemead Blvd, at 1 18 New Ave. at Garve) 19 Del Mar Ave. at Gal 20 San Gabriel Blvd, at 21 Walnut Grove Ave. 25 Walnut Grove Ave. Deleted: 26 San Gabriel Blvd. at Primary Street 3 Walnut Grove Av Valk 4 Walnut Grove Ay Hell 5 Waimea Grove Ay pdrr 7 San Gabriel Blvd Hell IB DeI Her Ave Hell 12 New Ave Nev 13 Valley Blvd Mu' 15 Valley Blvd Rio 16 Temple City Blvd Valk 18 Garvey Ave DeI 19 Garvey Ave San 20 Garvey Ave Vial 21 Rosemead Blvd Lox 22 Rosemead Blvd Vall. Deleted: 23 Rosemead Blvd Tel, u C I R C U L A T I O N O Additional Potential Capacity Improvements Other general operational improvements were identified for the study intersections that focus on turn lane configurations. Improvements can be made at these locations as operational improvements, but they are not required to mitigate study intersection impacts The improvements are based on general traffic engineering standards. It is general traffic engineering practice to consider a separate right-turn lane when movement traffic volumes exceed 200 vehicles in the peak hour, and a single left-turn lane is considered when traffic volumes exceed too vehicles during the peak hour. For dual turn lanes, the standard is to consider additional turn lanes when the movement traffic volumes exceed goo vehicles in either peak hour. Based on these additional potential improvements. +videning would likely occur at most intersections. Land dedications should be considered to implement these measures as new adiacent development occurs. Table s-v provides a summary of additional potential capacih• improvements based on the turn volumes at the study intersections. 40 Alternative Capacity Enhancements An alternate strategy for traffic improvement is the implementation of corridor traffic signal synchronization with adaptive control technology. Adaptive signal control technologies have the goals of reducing travel times, vehicle delay, and overall congestion. According to studies conducted by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), increases in roadway capacity by as much as ten percent can be achieved through the implementation of these signal system technologies. This gain appears in the form of less congestion, delays, and stops at the included roadway intersections. P A G E 3- 2 5 Deleted: These impro+'ern ere not required per the study intersection impacts, but Deleted: at av ivt.uoutiou Deleted: Land dedications mar be necessary as new developments; rise. I C I R C U L A T I O N 0 Table 3-7 Deleted' 6 - Additional Potential Capacity Improvements Potential Mitigation Measure Intersettion Righa-turn lane Additional right-turn lane Lek-turn lane Additional Ieh-turo bane I Walnut Grove Ave at Mlssion Dc NB 2 Rosemead Blvd at Lower Aqua Rd. WB NB' WB' 3 Rosemead Blvd at Mission Dr. EBISB 4 Walnut Grove Ave, at Valley Blvd. NBISB 5 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd. SB WS 6 Valle Blvd, at Mlssion Dc WB 7 Valley Blvd. at No Hondo Ave. NB NB 8 Valk, Blvd. at Temple City Blvd. SBiWB 9 Walnut Grove Ave. at Marshall St NB NB VVB VVB 10 Rasemnd Blvd at Marshall St EB I I Rosemead Blvd at Glendon Way NME 12 Temple City Blvd, at Lahus Dc NBAVB 13 Del Mar Ave at Hellman Ave. 14 San Gabriel Blvd. at Hallman Ave' SB 15 Walnut Grove Ave. at HenmaNRamona SB VVB 16 Rosemead Blvd at Telstar Ave. SBAV6 17 Rasemnd Blvd. at Whlonei St 18 New Ave. at Garvey Ave. VVB SB 19 Del Mar Ave. at Garvey Ave. SB/WB SB 20 San Gabriel Blvd. at Garvey Ave. SB 21 Walnut Grove Ave at Garvey Ave. SBIWB 22 San Gabrel Blvd. at Rush SUPourero Grande SBNIB 23 Walnut Grove Ave. at Rush St NBISB 58 EB 24 Walnut Grove Ave at Unda View Le. 25 Walnut Grove Ave at San Gabnel Blvd. a SB 26 San Gabnel Blvi at SR-60 WB Ramps NB Will 27 Town Cents, D, at SR-60 EB Ramps VVB 28 San Gabriel Blvd. at Town Center Dr. EB28 Overlaps with rewmmended mitigation measures for identified impacts Not . EB eEaacbound NB - Northbound SB - Southbound Will - Westbound P A G E 3- 2 6 M A R C H a a. 2 o 1 0 C I R C U L A T 1 0 N O Corridor synchronization improvements, however, can only be effective in implementation where there are multiple traffic signals along a corridor that can facilitate movements of platoons of vehicles while minimizing delay on the major street. Figure 3-5 provides an illustration of the corridors recommended for traffic signal coordination and centralized control within the traffic study for this Element. The post-improvement operations at the study intersection are 0 pro.ided within Table 3A(a_m. peak) and Table 3g (p_m--------------------------I Deaeced: peak). The analyzed improvements include operational Deleted: e benefits for those intersections within the recommended synchronization corridors, and approach capacity improvements for locations outside of those corridors. With the implementation of signal synchronization and adaptive control within the recommended corridors, the following intersections within the corridors would continue to have significant impacts and would require traditional widening improvements: • Walnut Grove Ave. at Marshall St. - a.m. peak and p.m. peak hours • Walnut Grove Ave. at San Gabriel Blvd. - p.m. peak hour c---------------------------------------------------------------------1 Implementation of a centralized and adaptive traffic signal control system, while not eliminating the need for physical capacity increases at all major area intersections, will provide alternative remedy for traffic impacts of the Land Use Element update at many local intersections. Local implementation of such a system in Rosemead can be implemented as an extension of the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) projects currently being planned and implemented by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. Rosemead will become part of the San Gabriel Valley ITS system, and would potentially have the ability (With additional funding sources) to build upon the initial sub- regional system set up by the County. - P A G E 3- 2 7 M A R C H t r. 2010 Deleted:... Rosemead Boulevard at Mission Drive - p.m. peakT <x>Walnvt Greta Avenue at saner ul var - a.m. and p.m. peakT <,>Rosemead Umdoard at Valley Boure and - a.m. peak and p.m. peaks <t>vauev Ben lo2rd at Rio Hondo v nu -p.m. peakT <r>walnut Grove Avenue at Marshall Street - a.m. peak and p.m. peaks <t>Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street- p.m. peak9 <s>Rosemead Boulevard at Glendon L% r- a.m. peak and p.m. peaks <•>Del Mar Avenue at Hellman Avenue- a.m. peak and p.m. peakT <e>San Gabriel Boulevard at Hellman Avenue - p.m. peak$ <s> Walnut Grove Avenue at Hellman/Ramona - a.m. peak and p.m. peakT <.>New Avenue & Garvev.Avenue - a.m. peak and p.m. peaks <•>Del Mar.Avenue at Garvey Avenue- p.m. peakT <*>San Gabriel Bmde%ard at Garvey Avenue -p.m. peakT Walnut Grove Avenue at Garvey .Avenue - a.m. peak and p.m. peaks <a> Walnut Grove Avenuc at San Gabriel Boulevard - p.m. peakT <,>San Gahriel Boulevard at SR-6o WestMund Ramps - a.m. peak aad p.m. peakT 40 0 C I R C U L A T 1 0 N This page intentionally left blank. is P A G E 3- 2 8 I MARCH I I 2010 C I R C U L A T 1 O N O Figure 3-S - Corridors Recommended for Signal Synchronization and Adaptive Control (color) \_J i S' P A G E 3- 2 9 MARCH ii, z o t o 0 0 C I R C U 1. A T I O N This page intentionally left blank. 0 P A G E 3- 3 0 MARCH 11. 2010 is C I R C U L A T I O N Table 3-t - °dBl 7 O Post-Synchronization and Roadway Improvement Operations at Study Intersections - AM Peak L I I—l Intarsection Future With Mitigation Condition Yined (2025) ic Recommended Mitigation Measure VIC LOS DiR. Impact? Walnut Grove Ave a[ Mission Dc Corridor Signal Synchro ossmon and Adaptive Control 0.758 C -0.074 No 2 Rosemead Blvd. at Lower Amsa Rd. Comdor Signal Synclvordndon and Adaptive Control 0.789 C .0.087 No 3 Rosemead Blvd at Mission Dr. Corridor Signal Synchronlntlon and Adap[Ive Control 1.120 F -0.059 No 4 Walnut Grove Ave, at Valley Blvd. Corridor Sigrid Syncleonintlon add Adaptive Control 1.032 F 4040 No 5 Rosemead Bbd. as Valley Blvd l Corridor Signal Synclvonintlon add Adaptive Condmi 1.055 F 4.055 No 6 Valley Blvd. at Mission Dr. Corridor Signal Synchronlntlon and Adaptive Control 0.515 A • No 7 Valley Blvd. a[ Rio HoMo Ave Comdor Signal Symhronlnton and Adl Control 0.531 A • No B Valley Blvd at Temple City Blvd. Corridor Signal Synclronintion add Adaptive Control 0.979 E 4.082 No 9 Walnut Grove Ave. at Marshall So Comdor Signal Synchronlntlon and Adaptive Control 1.332 F 0.348 Yes 10 Rosemead Bbd. at Marslull SL Comdor Signal SyncbroNndon aM Adaptive Control 0,951 E 4).(M8 No 11 Rosemead Blvd. at Glendon Wry Corridor Signal Synchronlntlon and Adaptive Control 0.905 E -0.00 No 12 Temple City8lvd. st Loftus Dr. N/A 0399 C ° No 13 Del Mar Ave at Hellman Ave Corridor Signal Symhmnlndon and Adaptive Cool 0.858 D 4.074 No 14 San Gabriel Blvd, at Hellman Ave. Corridor Signal Synchronlntlon add Adaptive Control 0.914 E .0.071 No 15 Walnut Grove Ave. at HellmaNRamona Corridor Slgml Synchronlntlon and Adaptive Control 0.889 D 4).006 No 16 Rosemead Blvd. at Telsmr Ave Corridor Signal Syrcluontntlon and Adaptive Control 0131 D 4).w No 17 Rosemead Blvd. at Whitmore SL Corridor Slgral Synchronlntlon add Adaptive Control 0.642 C ' No 18 N. Ave at Garvey Ave. Comdor Signal Synchronindon and Adaptive Control 0.816 D 4.063 No 19 Del Mar Ave st Garvey Ave Corridor Signal Symhmnlntlon and Adaptive Control 0.818 D 4).04 No 20 San Gabriel Blvd. at Garvey Ave Corridor Signal Synchronintion and Adaptive Control 0.978 E -0.071 No 21 Walnur Grove Ave at Garvey Ave Corridor Signal Syochronintion and Adaptive Control 0.909 E 4).W2 No 22 San Gabriel Blvd. et Rush S✓POti Grande N/A 0.587 A ° No 23 Walnut Grove Ave at Rush SL N/A 0.641 B ° No 24 Walnut Grove Ave at lands View Ln NIA 0.4% A ° No 25 Walnut Grove Ave at San QWei Blvd. No losses, nuu won 0.923 E 0.091 No 26 San Gabriel Blvd. a[ 50..60 WB Ramps N/A 0.94 E No 27 Town Center Dr. at SR-60 EB Rampx NIA 0,628 B No 28 San Gahriel Blvd. at Town Center Dr. N/A 0.750 D ° No `Three..r .O.'¢ mud w hav.'vmm VeBermpem. Then lerawu wW! h mtluLN'N Ne rynmmxaN mrMOn. lw rc¢ssry0(mnNOr ¢mpk¢nes 1.lem weWE mnMUe m tr en ebnere e( mood as ease lamvwu alW anal[-o- mu na-'rive ne rrwre mmnmm__ me uw - m. rvuw.nm me,cmmaKK'wens P A G E 3- 3 a M A R C H s a. v o a o Intersection I Walnut Grove Ave a[ His, 2 Rosemead Blvd. at lower 3 Rosemead Blvd, at Missio 4 Walnut Grove Ave, at Va 5 Rosemead Blvd. at Valley 6 Valley Bbd. at Mission Dr 7 Valley Bbd. at Rio Hondo 8 Valley Blvd. at Temple Ch 9 Walnut Grove Ave. an Ma 10 Rosemead Blvd, at Marsh I I Rosemead Blvd, at Glend. 12 Temple City Blvd. at Loki 13 Del Mar Ave, at Hellman 14 San Gabriel Blvd. at Helln 15 Walnut Grove Ave. at Hs 16 Rosemead Blvd, at Telstal 17 Rosemead Blvd. at Whim 18 New Ave. at Garvey Ave. 19 Del Mar Ave. at Garvey i 20 San Gabriel Blvd. at Gami 21 Walnut Grove Ave. at Ga 22 San Gabriel Blvd. at Rush 23 Walnut Grove Ave. at Ru 24 Walnut Grove Ave. at tai 25 Walnut Grove Ave. at So 26 San Gabriel Blvd. at Sl 27 Town Center Dr, at SR-6 28 San Gabriel Blvd, at Tower eleted: 'iM1ae m nunv -v,-v wrier weok eot nee s e 19 be m aemeee m/mpmn is C I R C U L A T 1 0 N ® Table 3.9 - Ddeted: B Post-Synchronization and Roadway Improvement Operations at Study Intersections - PM Peak 40 -nn. Teem. -W mr.u n mvgN irp. Ten wine. wW h n aodn Ne rynda-vl Cwrdan. (vrc[auro/[omM airkeewe Thin -0 .hie...f vmee a on. ,..ee.. =rv.a in av-.mva, Tlw. wn-uue weed w I ins een nenu... ow aMm b idW.J wln de w-wedid eelmmu en na iim Intersection Future With Mitigation Conditions Year (2025) ic Recommended Mitigation Messum V/C LOS Dill. Impect3 I Walnut Grove Ave at Mission Dr. Corridor Signal Synchronization and Adaptive Control On C -0.051 No 2 Rosemead Blvd. at Lower Azusa Rd. Corridor Signal Synchronization and Adaptive Control 0.842 D -0078 No 3 Rosemead Blvd. at Mission Dc Corridor Signal Synchronization and Adaptive Control 1.055 F -0.017 No 4 Walnut Grove Ave. at Valley Blvd. Corridor Signal Synchronization and Adapme Control 1.071 F -0.007 No 5 Rosemead Blvd, at Valley Bbd. Comdor Signal Synchronindon and Additive Control L023 F -0.017 No 6 Valley Blvd. at Mission Dr. Corridor Signal Synchronnuon and Adaptve Control 0.514 B ' No 7 Valley Blvd. at Rio Hondo Ave. Comdor Signal Synchronization and Adapdve Control 0829 D No 8 Valley Bll at Temple Clry Blvd. Corridor Sigrel Synchroniadon and Adapdve Control 0.842 D -O.US No 9 Walnut Grme Ave. at Marshall Sc Corridor Sigml SyncN orma on and Adaptive Control 1.486 F 0452 Yes 10 Rosemead Blvd. at Marslell St Corridor Sigm1 Syncbronizadon aM Adaptive Control 1=7 F -0.012 No I I Rosemead Blvd. at Glendon Way Corridor Signal Synchronization and Adaptive Control 0.798 C -01055 No 12 Temple City Blvd, at Loftus Dr. S9 € turn are 0.952 E No 13 Del Mar Ave. at Hellman Ave. Corridor Signal Synchrorvadon and Adaptive Control 0.798 C -0.072 No 14 San Gabriel Blvd. at H.H. Ave. Corridor Signal Synchronization and Adapdve Control 0.806 D 4.086 No 15 Walnut Grove Ave. at HellmaNRamom Corridor Slgml Synchroninuon and Adaptive Control 1.107 F .0.001 No 16 Rosemead Blvd. at Tali Ave. Corridor Signal Synchronization and Adapdve Control 0,956 E -0.069 No 17 Rosemead Blvd. at Whmmore Sc Corridor Signal Synchroniation and Adapdve Control 0.731 D ' No 18 New Ave at Gar ty Ave. Corridor Sigrid Synch-oni nation am AdapWe Control 0.913 E -0009 No 19 Del Mar Ave. at Garrey Ave. Corridor Signal Synchroninuon and Adaptive Control 0.984 E -0022 No 20 San Gabriel Blvd. at Garrey Ave. Corridor Signal Synchroninuon and Adaptive Control 1.023 F 4.087 No 21 Walnut Grove Ave. at Garvey Ave. Comdor Signal Synchronization and Adaptive Control 1.013 F 0.008 No 22 San Gabriel Blvd. at Rush SUPotrero Grande NIA 0.T76 C No 23 Walnut Grove Ave. at Rush SL NIA 0.741 C ° No 24 Walnut Grove Ave. at Landis View Ln NIA 0307 A No 25 Walnut Grove Ave. at San Gabriel Blvd. No feasible mitigation 1.069 F 0066 Yes 26 San Gabriel Blvd. at SR-60 WB Ramps NIA 0.921 E ° No 27 Town Center Dr. at SR-60 EB Ramps NIA 0.649 B ° No 28 San Gabriel Blvd. at Town Center Dc NIA 0.778 C No P A G E 3- 3 s MARCH is, z B a o Intersection I Walnut Grove Ave at Mi 2 Rosemead Blvd. at Lowe, 3 Rosemead Blvd. at Missic 4 Walnut Grove Ave. at V: 5 Rosemead Blvd. at Valley 6 Valley Blvd. at Mission D, 7 Valley Blvd. at Rio Hand[ 8 Valley Bbd. at Temple Ci 9 Walnut Grove Ave. at M 10 Rosemead Blvd. at Marsh H Rosemead Blvd. at Gland 12 Temple City Bbd, ac Loh 13 Del Mar Ave. at Hellman 14 San Gabriel Blvd. at Hell, 15 Walnut Grove Ave. at H- I6 Rosemead Blvd. at Telsts 17 Rosemead Blvd. at Whil 18 New Ave. at Garvey Ave 19 Del Mar Ave. at Garvey) 20 San Gabriel Bbd, at Gar, 21 Walnut Grove Ave. at G. 22 San Gabriel Blvd. at Rush 23 Walnut Grove Ave. at Rr 24 Walnut Grove Ave. ac La 25 Walnut Grove Ave. at Se 26 San Gabriel Blvd. at SR-6' 27 Town Center Dr. at SR-1 28 San Gabriel Bbd. at Tow eleted: -Teei< moon. "-Tha anene n ...w nm bar' , i. be on mmece.(imp¢ta r v.uld nor re.u eaterse[mm I I I I I l I r l I I I I I I is C I R C U L A T I O N Demand and Alternative Mode Enhancements As an alternative to physical roadway improvements, Rosemead must begin actively promoting a diversity of trip modes to and from local developments, the use of transit for a higher proportion of local and commuter trips, and encouragement of trip management programs at the individual development level. Such actions have been included in the list of implementation goals and policies within this Element. The potential for the reduction of vehicle trip generation from commercial developments is described below for each of these categories: Promoting a diversity of trip modes: All potential trip modes including passenger vehicles, walling, bicycling, and transit must be considered in the evaluation of major development projects within Rosemead. As major roadway projects are considered in the future, the provision of bicycle lanes should be considered where additional lanes or on-street parking would normally be provided. Provision of these facilities must be balanced, however, with the management of congestion and the parking needs of adjacent land uses. • Promoting higher use of transit: Rosemead is served by a basic network of regional transit lines and the local shuttle lines operated by the City. A movement of transit's role within Rosemead into a viable mode of local and commuter travel must occur. The City should develop a centralized transit center that includes a bus transfer center that links local routes with commuter 40 routes to downtown Los Angeles and other major job centers. A park-and-ride facility could also be a part of the larger transit center development. In-lieu mitigation measures should be considered for major developments, where contributions would be made toward the establishment or frequency increase of transit service to and from those developments, prodding support to transit development as new development occurs. Promoting the use of trip management programs: Trip generation can often only be effectively managed at the source. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs have been used for many years in local jurisdictions as an avenue to provide in-lieu mitigation measures for commercial developments. Resources are allocated by the developer to subsidization of transit passes, the promotion of carpooling and alternate trip modes, and the infusion of transit awareness into the workplace. The City should begin requiring TDM ga~ P A G E 3- 3 3 0 C I R C U L A T I O N O programs where physical traffic mitigation measures are infeasible or where roadway widening at the associated loss of parking or sidewalk areas would be undesirable. Post-implementation monitoring of trip reduction targets must be tied to development approvals when TDM plans are involved. Trips by bicycle can be encouraged by both on-street and off- street facilities. On-street facilities would include striped and signed (Class II) bicycles lanes on cross-town routes that overlap with major roadways and bicycle loops/sensors at traffic lights. Off-street facilities can include bicycle racks and kiosks with bicycle route maps at small public facilities or private developments, up to bicycle enclosures, showers/lockers, and bicycle rentals at large facilities. The existing bicycle route network within Rosemead, and the potential future bicycle network, is illustrated within Figttre 3- 6. This potential bicycle lane network is for illustrative purposes only, but pro+ides an example of how a bicycle network can be spaced across the city while prodding access to most residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. Ideally, bicycle lanes would be placed on low-volume roadways that traverse the City. The potential routes would need further study, to determine if parking or travel lanes can be removed or adjusted to pro+ide for the bicycle facilities, or if future roadway widening and improvements can include such facilities in the approved cross- sections. The study would examine whether arterials or continuous but lower-volume collector roadways would be appropriate for the pro+ision of bicycle facilities. P A G E 3- 3 4 MARCH it, 2010 0 C I R C U L A T I O N O - Figure 3-6 - Existing Bicycle Routes and Potential Future Routes 4) P A G E 3- 3 5 • O C 1 R C U LA T 1 0 N This page intentionally left blank. 40 P A G E 3- 3 6 M A R C H 11. 2 0 l o 0 C I R C U L A T 1 O N e Controlling Truck Traffic Through Routes The existing. truck route network within Rosemead pro+ides for truck access to local businesses, and to some extent, pro+ides routes for trucks to travel through the City to other destinations. Where truck traffic is intruding on areas where walking trips and other modes are being promoted, it should be prohibited. Where truck traffic is impeding resident access to neighborhoods, other roadway facilities, or the freeways, access routes should be reconsidered. Truck route locations and the potential adverse traffic impacts that would result from a consolidation of routes on specific corridors should be examined in more detail in a special study, which on completion would serve as an update to the Circulation Element. Truck route signage should also be studied and updated as necessary as part of the special study. Goals and Policies 40 Based on the issues and potential solutions presented within this Circulation Element update document, the following goals and policies were developed to guide implementation of the identified solutions. Goal 1: Maintain efficient vehicular and pedestrian movements throughout the City. Policy 1.1: Annually monitor and review the function of Rosemead's primary roadway system to identify am major capacity bottlenecks. Policy 1.2: Annually re.iew and update, via special study, truck route designations within the City. Policy 1.3: Assure that traffic studies for indi+idual developments, and traffic studies conducted for sectors of the community and specific plans by the City, make every effort to provide LOS D operations or better on arterial roadways and collector roadways if a nexus to the project exists. Policy 1.4: Preparation of a traffic impact report shall be required for major development projects located P A G E 3- 3 M A R C H + + . z o i o E C I R C U L A T I O N • in designated mixed-use areas, which generate trips that would meet a predetermined trip threshold. Policy 1.5: Encourage the development of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs for all major office and commercial developments. Policy 1.6: Cooperate with neighboring jurisdictions to craft resolutions to regional traffic problems. Special emphasis should be devoted to Rosemead Boulevard, Valley Boulevard, Garvey Avenue, and San Gabriel Boulevard. Policy 1.y: Identify appropriate improvements to the Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue intersection for the relief of congestion, while supporting transit use and walking, as individual area mixed-use developments are reviewed. Goal z: Development of infrastructure and service to support alternatives modes of travel. Policy 2.1: To identify areas of traffic spillover as new developments occur, monitor traffic patterns in residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to commercial or industrial corridors. • Policy 2.2: The provision of Class II (striped and signed) bicycle lanes along minor arterial or collector roadway corridors during roadway re- construction projects should be evaluated and implemented if feasible. Policy 2.3: Formal transit improvements should be considered when bus stops are adjacent to development projects and within roadway re- construction corridors. Amenities such as shelters, lighting, bus schedule kiosks, and similar amenities should be considered and implemented as feasible. Policy 2.4: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs should be actively promoted for major projects as in-lieu mitigation measures, where physical traffic mitigations are either infeasible or undesirable to the City. P A G E 3- 3 8 M A R C H 1 1 z n 1 o r L C I R C U L A T 1 O N • Policy 2.5: All site plans for new commercial or industrial development shall be reviewed for the provision of pedestrian connectivity to sidewalks and nearby bus stops, and the provision of bicycle and racks and transit information for larger projects. Policy 2.6: Walkable areas of the city, such as in the downtown area or the proposed mixed-use districts, should be reviewed for ways to improve pedestrian access (driveway access point reductions, buffers between roadways and sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.). Policy 2.9: Promote the linking of local public transit routes with that of adjacent jurisdictions and other transit agencies. Polic_c 2.8 Include safe and convenient bicvcle and pedestrian access in all transportation improvement projects. Ensure that non- motorized transportation systems are connected and not interrupted by impassable barriers, such as freeways and include amenities such as secure bicycle parking. Goal 3: Vehicular traffic associated with commercial and industrial uses should not intrude upon adjacent residential • neighborhoods. Policy 3.1: Develop neighborhood traffic control plans for those neighborhoods experiencing spillover traffic impacts that may result from intensification of commercial or industrial areas. Polio 3.2: Annually relielw on-street parking in neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown area and mixed-use districts, and develop parking and control plans for those areas adversely affected by spillover traffic and parking. Policy 3.3: Require that traffic studies for individual developments along commercial corridors examine the potential impacts on nearby residential roadway segments. Consider residential parking permit programs if necessary to mitigate potential area parking impacts. y . P A G E 3- 3 9 E C I R C U L A T 1 O N • Policy3.4: Develop standards for significant impacts to residential roadways, and include these standards within the adopted traffic study guidelines for the Cih. Policy 3.5: Discourage the use of local residential roadways as through routes. This ripe of traffic movement shall be discouraged through traffic calming planning that involves the local residents. Goal 4: Provide quality commercial and industrial development with adequate parldng for employees and visitors. Policp4.1: Private and public parking shall be provided in sufficient amount to adequately meet local needs and to minimize congestion on arterial streets. Policy 4.2: Conduct periodic re+iews of parking code standards and evaluate the standards for adequacy and applicability to changing development trends within the city. POLCY 4.3: Require projects in revitalization/redevelopment areas to pro+ide adequate off-street parking, even in re-use projects. Policy 4.4: Establish in-lieu parking fees for downtown areas. The Cih~ could utilize these fees to build • parking lots or structures as needed, or to create a designated parking district. Implementation Actions The following implementation actions put the Circulation Element policies and plans into practice for City elected officials, staff and the public. Each action relates directly to one or more policies established within the Circulation Element update. P A G E 3- 4 0 MARCH ii. z o 1 0 E C I R C U L A T I O N • Goal 1: Maintain efficient vehicular and pedestrian movements throughout the citv. Action 1.1 Adopt an ordinance establishing the street classification changes as described within the Circulation Element. Action 1.2 Identity feasible near-term roadway improvements that fulfill identified Circulation Element measures, and incorporate those improvements into the next update to the five- pear Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Action 1.3 Make every feasible effort to provide LOS D operations or better on arterial roadways and collector roadways. Action 1.4 Require TDM plans as a mitigation strategy component within the City traffic impact study guidelines. Action 1.5 Prohibit truck traffic on local and collector streets unless such streets provide the only access to a site. Action 1.6 Conduct a cirytivide study of truck routes to determine if truck routes can be consolidated without creating adverse impacts due to concentrations of truck traffic. Action 1.7 Evaluate the appropriateness. of identification signage on truck routes, including truck route turn signs at major intersections. Action 1.8 Study alternatives for improving circulation in the vicinity of Rosemead Square including the addition of travel lanes on Rosemead Boulevard through prohibition of parking and a possible redesign of the adjacent ramp approaches at the I-1o/Rosemead Boulevard interchange. P A G E 3- 4~ M A R C H . i. z o 1 o 11 C I R C U L A T 1 0 N • Goal 2: Development of infrastructure and services to support alternative modes of travel. Action 2.1 Develop neighborhood traffic control plans for those neighborhoods experiencing spillover traffic impacts that may result from intensification of commercial or industrial areas. Action 2.2 Conduct a study of the potential for the inclusion of bicycle lanes along major roadway corridors. If such facilities cannot be included along commercial thoroughfares, bicycle lanes on adjacent parallel but minor roadways should be considered. Action 2.3 Develop a Long-Range Transportation Plan for transit senice within Rosemead, which evaluates potential locations for a centralized transit center and park-and-ride facility. The center should tie in regional local and commuter transit lines and the City transit shuttle. Action 2.4 Require Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs for major projects as in-lieu mitigation measures, where physical traffic mitigations are either infeasible or undesirable to the City. Action 2.5 Design guidelines and roadway improvement • policies within the dow•ntomm area and the planned mixed-use district should promote the reduction of driveway access points, the prolision of buffer space or objects between roadways and sidewalks, and provide for safe mid-point crosswalks, as needed and as feasible tiithin available right-of-way and within existing roadway /control configurations. Action 2.6 Collaborate with local transit agencies to: • Develop programs and educate employers about employee rideshare (carpooling) and transit. • Establish mass transit mechanisms for the reduction of worker-related and nomvork related vehicle trips. P A G E 3- q 2 M A R C H 2 o i o • C I R C U L A T I O N Action 2.7 Work with AQMD and other agencies to receive grants for alternative modes of transportation and improved traffic flow. Action 2.8 In conjunction with measures that encourage public transit, ride sharing, bicycling and walking, implement circulation improvements that reduce vehicle idling. For example, coordinate controlled intersections so that traffic passes more efficiently through congested areas. Action 2.9 Create an interconnected transportation system that allows a shift in travel from private passenger vehicles to alternative modes, including public transit, ride sharing, car sharing, bicycling and walking. Before funding transportation improvements that increase vehicle miles traveled, consider alternatives such as increasing public transit or improving bicycle or pedestrian travel routes. Action 2.10 Consider giving funding preference to investment in public transit over investment in infrastructure for private automobile traffic. Action 2.11 Consider providing public transit incentives, including free and reduced fare areas. Action 2.12 Consider adopting a comprehensive parking policy that discourages private vehicle use and encourages the use of alternative transportation. • For example, reduce parking for private vehicles while increasing options for alternative transportation; eliminate minimum parking requirements for new buildings; "unbundle" parking (require that parking is paid for separately and is not included in rent for residential or commercial space); and set appropriate pricing for parking. Goal 3: Vehicular traffic associated with commercial and industrial uses should not intrude upon adjacent residential neighborhoods. Action 3.1 Require evaluation of potential parking overflow onto adjacent residential roadways for traffic and parking studies for new commercial and industrial developments. .~\7J P A G E3-03 MARCH ti- z o t o C I R C U L A T I O N Action 3.2 Consider programs to prohibit on-street parking • for demand generated by commercial and industrial activities, using permit programs and related signage for affected local streets. Action 3.3 Periodically rexiew on-street parking in neighborhoods adjacent to rexitalization/redevelopment districts and develop parking and control plans for those areas adversely affected by spillover traffic and parking. Goal 4: Provide quality commercial and industrial development pith adequate parldng for employees and visitors. Action 4.1 Require that any re-use of commercial or industrial redevelopment or reuse project must demonstrate that adequate on-site parking and loading will be provided for the proposed use. Action 4.2 Examine potential on-street parking demand within the immediate vicinih' of proposed projects as part of the parking analyses conducted for projects in the mixed-use and downtown districts. • P A G E 3- 4 4 MARCH ii, z o t o 0 r~ U 0 E R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • 4 MANAGEMENT ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN In State law requires every general plan to have an open space element (Section 65302[e]) and a conservation element (Section 65302[d]). The • open space and conservation elements complement one another due to the overlap in State requirements and the interrelationship of issues within each element. This is particularly true in Rosemead, which no longer has abundant open space and undeveloped natural resources. This circumstance emphasizes the importance of treating with care the City's remaining resources and open spaces. For these reasons, the Open Space and Conservation Elements have been combined into the Resource Management Element. The Resources Management Element open space component's purpose is to guide and set a policy framework for existing and future open space uses for use by residents. The conservation component focuses on protecting and maintaining available natural resources and discouraging wasteful consumption practices. The conservation components include ereensoace, water resources, air 9uality, and mineral resources. P A G E q-~ 0 R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • Important Regional Plans Natural resources such as water and air represent regional resources that are not contained within political jurisdictional boundaries. Thus, regional agencies have established regional programs and approaches to protect and consene resources shared by many cities and large geographic areas. Air Quality Management Plan The federal Clean Air Act requires preparation of plans to improve air quality in any region designated as a non- attainment area. (A non-attainment area is a geographic area identified by the Environmental Protection Agency and/or California Air Resources Board as not meeting State or federal standards for a given pollutant.) The plan must outline specific programs, strategies, and timelines for bringing the area into compliance with air quality standards. The Air Quality Management Plan prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, first adopted in 1994 and updated on a three-year cycle, contains policies and measures designed to achieve federal and State standards for healthier air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. Many of the programs address circulation improvements, since fossil-fuel-powered vehicles account for more than 60 percent of the nitrogen oxide emissions and 70 percent of the carbon monoxide emissions within the Basin. Businesses in Rosemead are required to comply with regulations of the South Coast Air Qualitv Management District, the agency charged with the authority to improve air quality in the region. • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) As part of a comprehensive effort to improve the quality of the nation's water resources, the federal government authorizes the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region to set up programs to implement National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) goals. Under the NPDES Stormwater Permit issued to the County of Los Angeles and Rosemead as co-permittees, most new development projects in the City are required to incorporate measures that minimize pollutant levels within stormwater runoff. Compliance is required at the time construction permits are issued, as well as over the long term through periodic inspections. The Water Resources and Quality section of this Element discusses the NPDES program. P A G E q- 2 M A R C H n 1 2 0 1 0 0 No Dumping Sign along the Rio Hondo Flood Content Channel R E S O U R C E M A NAG E M E N T • Relationship to Other Elements The Resource Management Element works in concert with the Land Use Element to promote City goals. The Land Use Element designates areas for open space and recreation. Parks, Open Space, Greenbelt, and Public Art Issues, Goal, and Policies Parks and Open Space As a largely built-out community, Rosemead recognizes the critical importance of enhancing and protecting resources for residents' physical health and the businesses' economic health. Thus, these goals and policies emphasize: (1) presening and maintaining established open space and recreational resources; (z) malting pro,isions for additional open space; (3) assisting in the conservation and protection of water resources; and (4) contributing to regional efforts to improve air quality and energy conservation. • Parks One of the issues facing Rosemead is the availability of open space and parkland to residents for passive and active recreation. The Resource Management Element serves as a plan for parkland and recreational open space in Rosemead. Parks serve a variety of needs; a classification is appropriate to understand the function of individual parks. In addition to prodding a classification for parklands within the City, this Element proAdes standards that „ill be applied to the development of new parks. Standards are important to clearly defining the function, characteristics, and facilities associated with a particular type of park. These same standards should also be flexible to allow for variability in parks that is characteristic of most communities. The following park standards are specific to the City of Rosemead and apply to both existing and future parkland. P A G E 4- 3 M A R C H x l a 0 1 0 0 R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • Regional Park This category includes , parks that are generally operated by large cities, a county, or a park district. Regional parks typically exceed zoo acres and have a variety of facilities for a wide range of interests. The Whittier Narrows Recreation Area, located adjacent to the eastern City border and one mile south of Rosemead, is an example of this type of park. This park has in excess of i,ooo acres and will continue to provide Rosemead residents and the surrounding region numerous recreational opportunities. The park offers fishing, skeet, pistol and trap shooting ranges, picnicking areas, a nature center, an equestrian facility, trails, numerous types of play fields and courts, playgrounds, and an extensive trail network. Community Park A community park is broadly defined as a park that is over to acres in area and, because of the nature of facilities provided, serves between to,ooo and 30,00o residents. A communih park's senice area is from one-half to one mile. Gan-ey Park and Rosemead Park are in this park category. • Garvey Park Neighborhood Park A neighborhood park's senice area generally corresponds to an elementan, school's senice area. A neighborhood park should be large enough and have adequate facilities for active recreation, including playgrounds and limited athletic facilities. Parks in this category are primarily designed to sen-e children and adolescents. Neighborhood parks range in size from two to ten acres and have a senice area from one-quarter to one-half mile. Rosemead's neighborhood parks include Zapopan Park and Sally Tanner Park. P A G E q- q M A R C H z 1 2 0 1 0 • R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • Mini-narks Mini-parks are small parks under one acre in size and generally designed to serve preschool-aged children. These parks or tot lots have a very small service area. Klingerman Park is an example of a mini-park. Specialty Park/Facility The Citv maintains the 3.5-acre Jess Gonzalez Sports Complex park, which cannot be easily classified according to the above criteria. Certain types of recreational uses are so distinct that typical standards may not apply. Other specialty facilities include the pedestrian and bicycle trails planned within the electric power transmission easement and along the Alhambra Wash. Greenbelt Greenbelt parks are small areas o.75 acres or less that include designated open space, landscaping, and/or recreation. Rosemead has four Greenbelt parks: Angelus Park, Guess Park, Olney Park, and Triangle Park. Whittier Narrows Golf Course The Whittier Narrows Golf Course is a 27-hole golf course located on 26o acres of the Whittier Narrows Park. The golf course includes amenities such as a grass driving range, practice greens, banquet facility, and a restaurant. Open Space Resources Open space contributes to the economic, social, and physical health, safety, and welfare of residents. Private lawns, . landscaping, and public open space in parks, playgrounds, and civic facilities make up the bulk of the City's open space. In addition to the parks described above, significant open space areas that benefit residents are: r) the Southern California Edison easement, and z) the Whittier Narrows Recreational Area, located east of the City limits in unincorporated Los Angeles County. Open space also can facilitate groundwater recharge and stormvvater management Figure a-t Resource Management Policy Map, identifies the local waterways in and near Rosemead. The Citv is substantially built out and contains little natural habitat. Riparian habitat is limited due to the channelization of local streams. There are no wildlife corridors in the Citv due to urbanization Rosemead has not established anv flood corridors, defined here as areas where annual flooding takes place. The areas of the Cin• where there is flooding potential, especially as due to dam inundation, are identified in the Public Safetv Element. PA G E q-5 O p MARCH a ~ z o i o C~ R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • Park Facility Standards Standards for recommended park space van'. The National Parks and Recreation Association (NPRA) recommends a minimum of 2.5 acres of park space per t,ooo persons. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) recommends for a minimum of 4 acres per i,ooo persons. Based on the CiWs 2008 estimated population-- of _57,x22 persons (California Department of Finance), the Cite should provide a minimum of}Aa acres of park land to meet the NRPA - Deletede[ed:: 2006 Del Deleted: 143 standards, and2ao acres per SCAG guidelines, X44 _ _ _ _ Deleted: zzq • Table 4-1 lists Rosemead's park and open space, and includes the Whittier Narrows Recreational Area, a t,o92-acre regional park immediately southeast of the City. Whittier Narrows Recreation Area offers significant recreational opportunities, such as fishing, shooting ranges, and trails. Approximately 25 percent of City residents live within a one-mile radius of Whittier Narrows Dam Recreation Area , and approximately 8o percent live within a two-mile radius. Excluding Whittier Narrows, the City has approximately 43.25 acres of parkland. According to NR A and SCAG recommendations, the City lacks approximatelvj~oi andalacres of parkland, respectively--_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ P A G E 4- 6 Deleted: loo Deleted: 186 M A R C H a l z o 1 0 0 Whittier Narrows Recreational Area (.source: Los Angeles County Regional Parks ,,,.Iaeounhmarks oral R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T 17J Table 4-1 Park and Recreation Facilities Name Park Type Acres Angelus Park Greenbelt 0.2- Garvey Park Community 8. Garvev Recreation Center Facility Guess Park Greenbelt 0.25 Klin erman Park Mini 0.75 Olnev Park Greenbelt 0.2 Rosemead Center Facie 0.75 Rosemead Park Communih, 18 Sally Tanner Park Nei hborhood 1.2 Jess Gonzalez Sports Com lex Park Specialty Facility Triangle Park Greenbelt 0.75 Za an Park Neighborhood 6 TOTAL(a) 43.25 Whittier Nanows(a,b) Regional >1,000 a) Total does not include Whittier Narrows. b) Located outside Rosemead city limits in unincorporated Los Angeles County. • Other Available Recreation Resources As the few- remaining vacant parcels in Rosemead develop, parks and open space will become increasingly difficult to acquire and fund. Rosemead's public school facilities offer opportunities to expand active recreational options. The City and the local school districts have established joint-use agreements to maximize use of limited local open space and recreational facilities. The State recognizes the relationship between school sites and their potential for recreational use. Education Code Section 35275 requires that school boards meet with park and recreation officials to coordinate the design of new parks. Education Code Section 393635 requires that in cases where surplus school sites are disposed of, first priority must be given to park recreational purposes. The policies contained in this Element encourage the continuation of the shared use of school sites for recreational purposes, as well as availability of City facilities for special school functions. Rosemead's schools provide recreational facilities including ball fields, soccer fields, and playgrounds. Many of these school facilities are underutilized and gated to prevent or restrict public use during non-school hours. Working collaboratively with the Rosemead, Gamey, Alhambra, El Monte, and Montebello school districts, Rosemead will seek out opportunities to allow for recreational use of school facilities by residents. PA G E 4-7 MARCH a a z o t o 11 R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • Public Art Public arts projects can help create strong connections between residents of Rosemead and places in the City. Along with fagade and streetscape improvements, public art projects can help redevelop and reinvigorate underutilized corridors in the Cite. Public art projects also have the potential to enliven civic spaces and strengthen a sense of community identity. Public art in Rosemead can proNide opportunities to observe the City's rich history and celebrate its unique and diverse population. Parks, Open Space, Greenbelt, and Public Art Goal and Policies Goal 1: Proxide high-quality parks, recreation, and open space facilities to meet the needs of all Rosemead residents. Policy t.t: Maintain current parks within the City to ensure they continue to proiide Rosemead residents the best possible recreational opportunities. Policy t.z: Develop pedestrian/bicycle trail systems in the City. Policy 1.3: Look for opportunities to establish public parks and other useable open space areas in those parts of Rosemead undeiserved by such facilities • (Figure 4-1). Policy 1.4: Establish parkland and/or recreation fees payment program for new residential development as provided by developer fees. Policy t.5: Incorporate public art projects in civic commercial, and mixed uses areas. Ensure that the public art correspond to the surroundings, and highlight Rosemead's unique community and character. P A G E 4- 8 M A R C H 3, 2 0 , o 0 • Park Names C Sally Tanner Park C Guess Park C Rosemead Park C• Community Center Park C Garvey Park C Zapopon Park C Jess Gonzales Sports Park C Klingerman Park C' Whittier Narrows Golf Course 10 Triangle Park 11 Whittier Narrows Park IENIE4® General Plan 3 • • Rosemead City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Major Roads _ H+t+++ Railroad - ° River/Wosh Source: City of Rosemead, DMP Inc. Feet 0 1,400 2,800 4,200 5,600 Park Edison Easement Whittier Narrows Golf Course/Recreational Parks Bike Route Community Center Figure 4-1 Resource Management Policy Map City of Rosemead General Plan Update R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • This page intentionally left blank. • P A G E q- 1 o M A R C H a z o i o E R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T Greenspace Issues Goal, and Policies In addition to the City's parks and open space facilities, commercial, industrial, and residential districts can provide greenspace in the form of landscaping and street trees. Increasing the amount and quality of greenspace promotes a positive physical image, creates identity for all types of development, and provides shade and cooling benefits. As part of the overall City aim of enhancing the visual quality of the urban environment and encouraging pedestrian activity, City policies, programs, and standards will provide for commercial and industrial properh, owners to landscape properties with turf, trees, and shrubs. Of particular importance are setback areas and parking lots open to public view. In commercial areas, improved greenspace creates a landscape aesthetic inviting to pedestrians. Neighborhoods near industrial areas benefit from greenspace as it softens viers toward parking lots, loading areas, trash enclosures, etc. Well- designed greenspace also improves the quality of single and multi-family neighborhoods and is considered a necessity rather than an amenity. Southern California communities continue to place increased demands on existing water supplies; consequently, there is a greater focus on water conservation, not just in times of drought, but in anticipation of future population growth. Many • private landowners and public authorities are adopting alternative forms of landscaping as an environmentally responsible alternative to conventional, water-intensive horticultural landscaping. Xeriscape is the philosophy of water conservation through creative landscaping. Xeriscape is a landscape that uses plants with low water requirements, making them able to withstand extended periods of drought. Properly maintained, a xeriscape can easily use less than one- half the water of a traditional landscape. Once established, a xeriscape should require less maintenance than turf landscape. Goal z: Increase greenspace throughout Rosemead to improve community aesthetics, encourage pedestrian activity, and provide passive cooling benefits Policy z.t: Increase landscaping and tree plantings along all major arterials, including Valley Boulevard, (1 P A G E 4- M A R C H 1 2 0 ~ o 0 R E S O U R C E M A N A G EM E N T • Gamey Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard, and Del Mar Avenue. Policy 2.2: Continue to require all commercial and industrial property owners to maintain landscaping on their property. Policy 2.3: Require new developments to incorporate creative and effective landscaping into the overall site plan of proposed projects. Policy 2.4: Maintain a coordinated City street tree program for all areas of Rosemead. Pol1Cy 2.5: Pursue landscaped street medians and parkways construction where adequate right-of-way is available. Policy 2.6: Enhance the on-and off-ramp areas at Interstate 6o, Interstate lo, and State Route 19. Police 2.7: Encourage public art projects through the development of impact fees, in-lieu fees, and policies. u Examples of parlune lot lanciscar,mR P A G E 4- 1 z M A R C H a z o 1 0 0 R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T 40 Water Consumption and Quality Issues, Goal, and Policies Rosemead, like the entire greater Los Angeles basin, is semi- arid, with relatively limited annual rainfall. Early settlers drew local groundwater resources for agricultural and domestic water needs. As the region grew, increasingly more wells tapped into groundwater basins. In many areas, groundwater levels have declined as water use continues to exceed natural recharge through rainfall and stream flow. Much of Southern California now relies upon imported water to greatly supplement local resources, both to meet volume demands and to ensure water quality meets state and federal drinking water standards. The Citv's location in and Southern California underscores the importance of continued education regarding wise water use and water conservation technologies. The City remains committed to water conservation strategies that ensure a healthy, clean, and reliable supply of water remains available for residents. The City encourages the use of simple water conservation measures in homes and in the workplace. Water resources are limited to the groundwater basins that provide a local source of water to the Cih~ and the surrounding region. Rosemead is located above the San Gabriel Basin, a • groundwater basin drained by the San Gabriel River and the Rio Hondo. The groundwater basin is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, San Jose Hills to the east, Puente Hills to the south, and Raymond Fault to the west. Lou] groundwater accounts for a major portion of the area's water supply. Three of the groundwater purveyors in the City are: the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, the South San Gabriel System (serves half of Rosemead), and the California Water Service Company. Due to past San Gabriel Vallev industrial practices, the basin has been contaminated with a variety of pollutants ranging from pesticides to industrial chemicals and solvents. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), over 30 square miles of San Gabriel Valley groundwater may be contaminated. The contaminated sites underlie Rosemead and other San Gabriel Valley communities. Although the federal government is responsible for cleanup of the area and initiated a comprehensive remediation program in 1994, Rosemead is committed to reducing the further contamination of P A G E 4- 1 3 M A R C H 2 r 2 O , O 0 Cemented Rio Hondo flood control channel R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • underground water. The City participates in Los Angeles Counh's NPDES program to reduce the amount of water polluted by pesticides, engine oil, and household chemicals that run into the storm drain system and pollute groundwater. As part of this effort, the City must comply with the County's Stormwater Quality Management Program and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) in several areas including public outreach, planning and construction, public agency activities, business inspections, and illicit connection and flow. Goal 3: Manage the use of and protect water resources that provide supplies to Rosemead residents and businesses. Policy 3.1: Work with water suppliers to ensure that adequate water resources continue to be available to meet the needs of residents and business. Policy3.2: Promote water conservation measures, reduce urban runoff, and prevent groundwater pollution associated with development projects, property maintenance, City operations, and all activities requiring City approval. Policy 3.3: Work with local, regional, and State agencies to maintain and improve the quality of local groundwater and to provide a cost-effective and equitable means of reducing urban runoff. . Policy 3.4: Adopt and enforce regulations and engage in educational efforts to eliminate groundwater and urban runoff pollution. Policy 3.5: Take steps to use reclaimed water whenever and wherever possible in both public and private facilities. Air Quality and Energy Conservation Issues, Goal, and Policies Every day, the average person breathes thousands of gallons of air, yet our air is contaminated by smog emanating from automobiles, industrial processes, and daily activities. These P A G E 4- 1 4 • R E S O U R C E M ANA G E MEN T • pollutants are responsible for a range of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced tolerance for exercise, impairment of mental functions, and reduced plant growth. Although air quality has localized impacts, it is a regional problem created throughout the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Every city, must accept a portion of responsibility for addressing air quality problems. Rosemead is located within the South Coast Air Basin, a geographic area that extends from the Pacific Ocean north to the San Gabriel Mountains and east to the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains. Due to topography, climate, and dailv pollutant emissions, the basin is a non- attainment area for ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter. Although the air is much cleaner today than it was 40 years ago and continued reductions in pollutant concentrations are expected, the basin is not expected to meet air quality standards in the foreseeable future. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) works to improve regional air quality and to achieve federal and state standards for various air pollutants. According to SCAQMD, air quality has improved since the latter decades of the last century due to lower energy consumption, improved auto emission standards, and use of alternative modes of transportation. Due to Rosemead's location adjacent to two freeways, local air quality is affected most by vehicle emissions, railway transportation, and industrial uses in adjacent communities. Although the City has no direct ability to manage programs for • emissions control, Rosemead supports the regional Air Quality Management Plan measures to help reduce air pollution. Energy conservation is another important strategy to improve air quality and preserve natural resources. Pollutants are generated by the burning of fossil fuels and natural gas to produce electricity. Conserving energy contributes to improvements in air quality. Buildings are one of the major contributors to electricit. demand. Energy- requirements and pollutants associated with energy generation can be reduced through architectural designs, building construction, and landscaping. The City promotes energy conservation through the implementation of State of California Title 24 energy performance requirements in building codes. Title 24 establishes standards for minimum ceiling, wall, and raised floor insulation; minimum heating, ventilating, air conditioning and water heating equipment efficiencies; and other requirements that help reduce energy use. PAGE 4-~5 Q.~~pl MARCH s a o A o 0 R E S O U R C E M A N A G EM E N T • Goal 4: Effective contributions to regional efforts to improve air quality and conserve energy. Policy 4.1: Integrate air quality planning with City land use, economic development, and transportation planning efforts. POlicy4.z: Support programs that reduce air quality emissions related to vehicular travel. Policy4.3: Support alternative transportation modes and technologies, and develop bike- and pedestrian- friendly neighborhoods and districts to reduce emissions associated with automobile use. Policy 4.4: Encourage energy conservation efforts and the incorporation of energy-salving designs and features into new and refurbished buildings. POliCV4.5: Encourage public employees to follow energy consenation procedures. POhc\' 4.6: dot a Climate Action Plan or Policy to address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - oeietm: comi&r.d.pE g greenhouse gas mitigation. Mineral Resources Issues, Goal, and Policies The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires that all cites consider mapped mineral resources designations (as defined by the State Mining and Geology Board) in long-term planning efforts. SMARA was enacted to promote the conservation and sensitive use of significant mineral deposits. The law ensures that significant aggregate resources are recognized and considered before land use decisions are made that may compromise the long-term availability of these resources. The State Mining and Geology Board classifies lands in California based on availability of mineral resources. Four Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ) designations have been P A G E 4- 1 6 M A R C H x i z 0 1 0 R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • established for the classification of sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources: • MRZ-1 - Adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present. • MRZ-z - Adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or there is a high likelihood for their presence, and development should be controlled. • MRZr3 - The significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. • MRZ-4 - There is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation. According to the State Mining and Geology Board, land within Rosemead is classified as MRZ-1, MRZ-3, and MRZ-4'. Figure 4-2 identifies the extent of these classifications. As Rosemead is completely urbanized and the State has not identified any significant recoverable mineral resources, no mineral extraction activities are permitted within the City limits. Policy Map and Plan The goals and policies in this Element emphasize maintenance and presenation of existing open space and recreation resources, and making provisions for additional open space in areas of the Citv considered deficient. The more difficult • policies to implement regard the provision of additional open space due to the scarcity and cost of available land. Figure 4-1 identifies areas where the City can look to provide new or enhance existing park and recreation facilities, which may include working with school district officials to improve joint- use field space. Implementation of certain policies will result in the addition of public and private greenspace in the City. Street tree plantings will occur in particular along portions of Valley Boulevard, Gamey Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard, and Del Mar Avenue. Other corridor treatments will be considered for Rosemead Boulevard as funds allow. With regard to landscaping on private properties, the City will establish new standards in the zoning ordinance to ensure new development integrates well- planned, functional, and attractive plantings that enhance the adjacent public realm. Update of Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties -Part 11, Los Angeles County. Department of Coasenetion, Division of Mines and Geology, 1994. x.(17 P A G E 4- 1 7 M A R C H z 1 z n 1 0 0 r1 L_J R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T This page intentionally left blank. P A G E 4- 1 8 M A R C H a z o 1 o 0 • i4® R5W F Iy I. MRZ- Le99r•1 Lake 0 • • Rosemead City Boundary Q Mineral Resource Areas Sphere of Influence Boundary MRZ-1: Areas where adequate information indicates Major Roads that no significant mineral deposits are present, or Rail where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. rrr++++ road River/Wash MRZ-3: Areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. M assi neat where available Minformation is inadequate Source: City of Rosemead, DMP Inc. for r assignment to any other RZ zone. Figure 4-2 Feet 0 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800 Mineral Resources Map City of Rosemead June 2008 General Plan Update • • R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T This page intentionally left blank. P A G E q- 2 0 M A R C H Q 1 2 0 1 0 0 R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • Water conservation measures will be considered in all new development. With regard to water quality, the City will enforce BMPs for development acti.ities and ask developers to use creative approaches for cleaning and managing stormwater runoff. Implementation Actions u Goal 1: Availability of quality park, recreation, and open space facilities to meet the needs of all Rosemead residents. Action 1.1 Create a Parks. Recreation. and General Facilities Master Plan to evaluate current and future community needs interests, and preferences regardina parks. facilities, and programs and to identify Priorities and develop recommendations for future development and management of the parks and recreation system for the next 15 years. Action 1.2 Maintain joint-use agreements between the Cih• and local school districts for facilities and field use. Action 2.3 Establish an "Adopt-a-Park" program to invoke civic organizations, businesses, and private citizens in park maintenance and upkeep. Action 1.4 Work closely with the Los Angeles Sheriff Department in park design and management to minimize crime and vandalism on and around park facilities. Action 1.5 Emphasize the need for citizen participation in reducing vandalism in City parks through the City's Neighborhood Watch programs. Action 1.6 Seek opportunities to establish joint-use and regional joint-powers agreements to increase available recreational resources. Such efforts should be coordinated between the City of Rosemead and: • school districts; • adjacent jurisdictions; PAGE 4-zl Q D MARCH ¢ r . z n r o Deleted: Establish a Parks ad Recreation Commission to develop and recommend policies to the C." Counea.1 0 R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); utility companies; • the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy; and • County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation. Action 1.9 Continue to collect Quimby fees for park land. Consider including park land and park equipment acquisition in future CIPs. Action 1.8 Establish an "Art in Public Places" fee program to fund public art projects. Goal 2: Increased greenspace throughout Rosemead to improve community aesthetics, encourage pedestrian activity, and provide passive cooling benefits. Action 2.1 Prepare an inventory and database of all street trees in the Citv. Action 2.2 Create a Street Tree Master Plan to guide the planting and maintenance of street trees in the City. Action 2.3 Design and implement a comprehensive program to improve the quality of landscaping and tree plantings along portions of Valley Boulevard, Rosemead Boulevard, Garvey • Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard, and Del Mar Avenue. Work with the %isual images contained within the Valley Vision Plan. The street tree program must consider a mixture of tree tvp so that disease or blight will not affect the City's ' entire tree stock. Action 2.4 Consider adopting a tree protection and replacement ordinance, e.g., requiring that trees larger than a specified diameter that are removed to accommodate development must be replaced at a set ratio. Action 2.5 Continue to require all commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential property, owners to maintain landscaping on their property. Encourage property owners to gradually install landscaping that complies with the City plant palette. P A G E 4- 2 2 `J R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • Action 2.6 Develop a Cite plant palette, and require that at least 40 percent of new landscaping projects in the City consist of low-water native or xeriscape species dmeTl from the palette. Evaluate this percentage annually and increase the percentage as feasible. Require the posting of covenants to ensure that the landscaping is well maintained. is ` Action 2.7 ction 2.8 As part of a comprehensive revision of the zoning ordinance, establish property landscape standards that provide for enhanced and functional landscape treatments and maintenance. Connect parks and publicly accessible open space through shared pedestrian/bike paths and trails to encourage walking and bicycling. Goal 3: Managed use and protection of water resources that provide supplies to Rosemead residents and businesses. Action 3.1 Actively support and partner with other agencies regarding the development and implementation of viable water management programs to enhance water supply reliability. Action 3.2 Enforce regulations and guidelines and update them as needed to meet the specific needs in the planning area to manage stormwater flows. This mar include requirements for on-site detention or retention that implement the NPDES program, enhance groundwater recharge, complement regional flood control facilities, and address applicable community design policies. Action 3.3 Adopt a water pollution control ordinance or policy to regulate urban runoff discharges to the storm drain system in coordination with regional efforts. Action 3.4 Participate in developing and implementing a - public information program regarding the appropriate use of herbicides and fertilizers to limit pollutants entering the storm drain system. Action 3.5 Consider adopting a comprehensive water conservation strategy. The strategy may include, P A G E 4- 2 3 M A R C H a 1 2 0 1 0 Deleted: Action c.6 The street tree program wdl include a listing of appropriate trees along City arterials and collector streets, and I til consider a mixture of tree Npes so that disease or blight will not affect the City's entire tree stock.1 0 R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • but not be limited to, imposing restrictions on the time of watering, requiring water-efficient irrigation equipment, and requiring new construction to offset demand so that there is no net increase in water use. Action 3.6 Consider adopting water-efficient landscape ordinances. Goal 4: Effective contributions to regional efforts to improve air quality and conserve energy. Action 4.1 For all development applications that have the potential to adversely affect air quality, the City shall, as appropriate and pursuant to CEQA, require detailed air quality analysis for all applications that have the potential to adversely affect air quality. All development proposals brought before the City will be reviewed for potential adverse effects on air quality and will be required to mitigate any significant impacts in accordance with CEQA. Action 4.2 Implement Transportation Systems Management (TSM) techniques such as synchronized traffic signals and Develop Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs that work towards eliminating vehicle trips. Support the development of transit and ridesharing facilities to achieve air quality goals . and reduce traffic congestion within the City. Action 4.3 Develop and implement site design guidelines to facilitate pedestrian and biking activity and the use of transit. Action 4.4 Develop pedestrian and bike pathway design standards that buffer pedestrian/bike and vehicular aatilities. Action 4.5 Encourage the regional transit authority to maintain comprehensive bus routes throughout Rosemead. Action 4.6 Consider replacing existing City fleet vehicles in with the cleanest vehicles commercialh, available. P A G E 4- 2 4 M A R C H a 2 0 1 0 0 R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • Action 4.7 Where fugitive dust is causing a chronic public nuisance or air quality is in exceedance of PMlo standards, consider adopting a dust control policy that requires preparation and approval of a dust control plan. Action 4.8 Consider preparing and enforcing a dust reduction ordinance that addresses mobile and stationary sources. Action 4.9 The Climate Action Plan or police should: • require a baseline inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from all sources by a date certain, establish greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and deadlines, and enforceable greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures. • include mechanisms to ensure regular review of progress toward the emission reduction targets established by the Climate Action Plan, report progress to the public and responsible officials, and revise the plan as appropriate, using principles of adaptive management. Action 4.10 Conduct energy efficiency audits of existing buildings by checking, repairing, and readjusting heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, eater heating equipment, insulation and weatherization. Action 4.11 Partner with community sen-ices agencies to • fund energy efficiency projects, including heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, water heating equipment, insulation and weatherization, for low income residents. Action 4.12 In governmental construction, require or give preference to products that reduce or eliminate indirect greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., by giving preference to recycled products over those made from virgin materials. Action 4.13 Consider requiring government contractors to take action to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., by using low or zero-emission vehicles and equipment. Action 4.14 Consider providing public education and information about options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through reduced d PAGE 4-25 M A R C H s z n i n J R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T • automobile useage (including trip reduction/ linkage, biking and walking, vehicle performance and ffi i ey w or zero- emission vehicles, car/ride sharing)- responsible purchasing, conservation, and recycling. Action 4.15 Consider entering into partnerships to create and expand polluting vehicle buy-back programs to include vehicles "ith high greenhouse gas emissions. Deleted: Acti0n4.16 Consider providing public education and information about options for reducing motor vehicle related greenhouse gas emissions. Include information on trip reduction; trip linking; public transit; biking and walking; vehicle performance and efficiency (e.g., keeping tires inflated); low or rsro-emission vehicles; and car 11 P A G E q- z 6 M A R C H a i a o r o 0 • • 0 P U B L 7 C S A F E T Y • 5 SAFETY KOSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN he Public Safety Element identifies and addresses the natural and human-caused hazards that may influence the development, redevelopment, and utilization of properties in Rosemead. Foremost, this Element identifies the ways to reduce the risk of property damage, injuries, or loss of life in the event of a natural or human- caused disaster. • According to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, the Safety Element works to "reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from fires, floods, earthquakes, landslides, and other hazards." This Public Safet Element sets forth policies designed to minimize threats from natural and human-caused hazards. By implementing the directives of the Public Safety Element, the City intends to use available planning methods in order to: 1) minimize risk exposure, 2) pro%ide timely emergency serNice delivery to all residents and businesses when the need arises, and 3) maintain an optimal environment for personal security. While population growth and changing needs within the community Nsill continue to place demand on resources, Rosemead is committed to enhancing the safety of neighborhoods, business districts, and public places. The Public Safety Element is one of the required General Plan elements. The City emphasizes a proactive approach to planning, which involves identifying and avoiding or mitigating P A G E 5- t F E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2 o i o 0 P U B L I C S A F E T Y • hazards present in the environment that may adversely affect property and threaten lives. Government Code Sections 65302(g) and 65302(f) identifi several issues to consider in such planning efforts, as does California Health and Safety Code Section 56050.1. In Rosemead, safety issues of concern include: • Geologic hazards, including (non-seismic) slope failures; collapsible, compressible or expansive soils subsidence due to groundwater pumping; and shallow ground %vater. ■ Seismic (earthquake) hazards, including surface fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction effects, and earthquake-induced slope instability's; • Flooding (inundation) from seismically induced dam failure; ■ Urban fires; and ■ Presence of hazardous materials. Geologic, Seismic, and Flooding Conditions Introduction and General Setting The information on the geologic, seismic, and flooding conditions within and around the City are summarized briefly • in this section. information is derived from readily available technical documents that can be referred to for more details as necessary to evaluate and analyze individual projects; additional technical background information is presented in Appendix A. Issues due to hazards arising from the geologic, seismic, and dam failure-induced flooding conditions in the City are discussed in a follo%ing section. A geologic, seismic, or dam failure-induced flooding event that would impact a portion of the City has the potential to affect persons and property in the City. These issues and their potential impacts are the basis for establishing the goals and policies to protect lives and property. Discussion is also prodded regarding the buildings and infrastructure most important to the citizens and City personnel in the event earthquake effects are particularly severe in the City. The technical issues summarized in Appendix A must be taken into account as the City of Rosemead expands, fills in, and re- develops. Existing building codes and land use planning requirements can address most of the hazards inherent in the P A G E 5- 2 I I' E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2 0 1 0 11 P U B L I C S A F E T Y geologic setting of the City. As newer, more accurate geologic, soils, and seismic information has been developed since the last General Plan update, it is nom, possible to identify many of the areas in the City vulnerable to natural hazards, and account for the hazards in future development. Sources for this information range from generalized regional reports and maps (including the previous General Plan Seismic Element) to project-specific geotechnical and engineering geology reports. Geology and Soils Geologic units at and near the ground surface in Rosemead are presented by Yerkes and Campbell (2005; Figure 5-1). The southernmost portion of the City abuts the Montebello Hills, which consist of sandstone, siltstone and conglomerate of the Fernando formation (map symbol Tf). The remainder of the City, north of the hills, is underlain by older alluvium (Qof, Qof-i, and Qoa) and younger alluvial fan deposits (Qyfl shed from the surrounding hills, various young stream wash deposits (Qw, Qyw), landslide deposits (Qls) associated mith the Fernando Formation, and artificial fill (Qaf) along the freeways and in at least one large tract development. These geologic units have physical characteristics that can produce hazards such as landslides, mudslides, collapsible or expansive soils, subsidence, or shallow groundwater. Appendix A provides more detailed descriptions of the geologic units (Table 5-1) and the hazards associated with the unit characteristics of these geologic units. Seismicity/Earthquake Ground shaking, and Faults • Figure 5-2 (Shaw et al., 2002; California Geological Survey [CGS, formerly the California Division of Mines and Geologv- CDMG], 2005) shows the regional faults that would impact the City should a moderate to large earthquake be generated on any of these seismic sources Hithin about 25 miles of Rosemead. Earthquakes resulting in ground shaking characterized by greater than 20 percent the acceleration of gravity- (g) can be expected on the Whittier (magnitude [M] 6.8), Puente Hills (M 7.1), Upper Elysian Park (M 6.4), Ravmond (M 6.5), Sierra Madre (M 7.2), Verdugo (M 6.9), San Jose (M 6.4), Hollywood (M 6.4), and Clamshell-Sawpit (M 6.5) faults. The only known active fault at the surface Hithin the City (Figure 5-3; CDMG, i99i) is the Alhambra Wash fault (zoned as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone [APEFZ]). However, there are several other unnamed fault segments or suspected faults of unknown age of last movement mapped across the City (Figure 5-4; Treiman, 1991; Yeats, 2004). Potential seismic/earthquake hazards include surface fault rupture, ground P A G E S- 3 F E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2 0 1 0 0 P U B L 1 C S A F E T Y • This page intentionally left blank. • P A G E 5- 4 F E B R U A R Y f b. 2 o i o • • > FMF A n General Plan = Qof _ - G Gr Q y tRSii, ~d ~ ' ~ 1 ~ ti ~I rl ail ■ / ; Qyf, Qo f ValNy Staa St = > ■ + W Rah h St ¢ Marshall St I c _ ..SaR$!R a ~ Qaf U nlorr C Rallr6 QaF Hollffu Av a i' Doro th t Qof a ~ I ~ i f:+tar,un PI a i u, V g ~ or S a or Q x ~ I ~ P a 8 I i '1 . 1 i II j I GarN ,Ar Qaf I arYey AV ~ I _ Qyl t N AV „ .I M Wrqs w QYf . Hi hel Q' In / i v Tfl - J Qo Y - _ 7fuf - a Tfo` I j ; 1 Kaim SI I `Tfuc Qof2 r- 4 ,~f -~7 >1171 vt Q>9 c f Tfuc Tfu Qy~a, l _ ~ ! S ! c Qof a 3s Tfuc Q f fF j QY-9 L4 - , T1u - Qof Q.fl Qof11- % on Ma i i Qoa . r'"_~~ r~• Pomona - QOf F °^!♦b y.., W QI QYf ♦Ilo Blvd t l..> Qyf -.QIs,' Tfuc Tfu f L Lab Qyf Tfu I` t ~ ' Qls ~ Tfuc ` Tfu QY-9 QW QYf For more information of the Geologic Units within the City refer to Table A-1. Qaf Q Qof Q Qyf 0 Qyws Reservoir Q QI 0 Qof1 0 Qyfg Q Tfl Rosemead City Boundary Qls 0 Qof2 0 Qyw Q Tfu aaaaaa. Sphere of Influence Boundary Qls$ Q Qw Q Qywo 0 Tfuc Major Roads • Q Qoa 0 Qwa Q Source: Yerkes and Cam bell 2005 Qywg Q Tfuf rl+f++i Railroad , p ; CDMG, 1998, SHZR 024, Plate 2.1. Figure 5-1 000 4 0 1 000 2 000 3 000 et City Area Geology Map , , , , City of Rosemead June 2008 General Plan Update P U B L I C S A F E T Y 0 This page intentionally- left blank. P A G E 5- 6 I F E B R U A R 1' I b, 2 0 1 0 0 • • r Las'G!e r=tj s a I a Fault f i •1 nf1J ..._.k- 5km I~eo Lower Elysian ,f►~ P + + Park Fa Li tf J !At Pace F• ~ o e • Oce I ¢ Z t 1 ANGELES NATIONAL s'• eo~f Loma~s Angeles 1 J'Segment, Fau/r I ! Raymond Lit I 1 n c sv Uppe Elysia -Park,Fault - ?rte \ E-PUEN' 0 Rosemead City Boundary Primary Road Potential Earthquake Faults 1 n- (See Table 5-2) - Could cause strong ground shaking in Rosemead. Blind Thrust Faults - Faults are buried below the surface; small triangles indicated fault dip direction (north) and thin gray lines indicate the depth contours (e.g., 5 km = 5 kilometers deep) on the fault surface (Show el ol, 2002). Surface Faults - Faults exposed at the ground surface; solid where well located, dashed where approximate, and dotted where concealed (Bryant, 2005) Sources: Show et al. 2002, and Bryant, 2005. Figure 5-2 Feet 0 18,000 36,000 54,000 Earthquake Faults June 2008 P U B L I C S A F E T Y • This page intentionally left blank. • P A G E 5- 8 I FE, B R I' A R 5' i n. 2 0 1 0 0 A a 7~ a i I I _ ~8 -r- 4~ General Plan •~1 t.owaC ►susa `Vi'a:. `fir ~n - ~ - 10 Dorothy: g - Err-man F, 1Milrnm I _ Garvey Av _ > >a Q a - ; JEgley Av a Newmark Av ° I Gamalla Zv _ Pomona Fwy / J it - vvh II I \ Ih 10 I . ~ e 1 ' . • Rosemead City Boundary Active Faults Alquist-Priolo Sphere of Influence Boundary Well Located Earthquake Fault Zone Major Roads Approximate Located Railroad Inferred Location 0 Turning Point - - River/Wosh - - Query indicates additional uncertainty. Figure 5-3 Sources: California Division of Mines & Geology (CDMG), November 1, 1991. AlquiSt-Priolo Fee' o 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Earthquake Fault Zone City of Rosemead June 2008 General Plan Update P U B L I C S A F E T Y 0 This page intentionally left blank. P A G E s- i o F E B R U A R Y 1 6. z o t o 0 10 i - - 'General Plan n~~p \ I - i < . Aljt Q Lewar Kara _ ` Grand AV .1.-.._- aE nPIS _ k v c m a _ 1MtFtrnaro a " Park St ; 1 40 10 aGnws Av linger n st-3•. - I' • a M • • ua„ sh S[ - - L a • Fault Hazard Management 000 Approximate location of escarpment Photolineoments defining Zone (FHMZ) for Important of Bullard and Lettis (1992) Probable or Possible fault Facilities • • • Inferred faults from California Well-defined Q Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Department of Water Resources Less well-defined Fault Zone (1966) 11L~LL Indicate downside of scarp Sources: CDMG, 1991, Treirnan, FER-222; Figure 5-4 Bullard and Lettis, 1992; CDWR, 1966. Fault Hazard Feet Management Zones FHMZ 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 City of Rosemead June 2008 General Plan Update PUB LI C SA FET1' • This page intentionally left blanL E P A G E 5- 1 z I F E B R U A R Y 1 6. z o 1 o 0 P U B L I C S A F E T Y • shaking, earthquake-induced liquefaction (including lateral spreading and ground failure) and landslides (shown on Figure 5-5; CDMG, 1999). The City is also underlain by two buried thrust faults that, although they do not reach the ground surface, have the potential to cause strong ground shaking in Rosemead. These hazards and the local earthquake faults (Table 5-2) are discussed further in Appendix A. Flooding 162. While general flooding from storm events is not common in Rosemead's history, several dams, which continually or sometimes impound water, have the potential to fail during a large earthquake and flood portions of the Cih. These are the Whittier Narrows Dam, Santa Fe Dam/Reservoir, and Garvey Dam/Reservoir. Failure of any of these dams during a time when significant water is impounded could cause inundation of residences, businesses, and infrastructure. Figure 5-7 (California Office of Emergency Services, :ational Geographic Socie tV. 2002) shows the potential flood areas associated with this potential hazard, which is discussed further in Appendix A. Deleted: -Dam Failure Inundation I DeleGed:200 Deleted: L'SGS. 2007 P A G E S- t 3 F E B R U A R Y t 6. 2 0 1 0 P U B L I C S A F E T Y ~ Hazards Due to Human Activities Businesses and residents in Rosemead are subject to potential hazards associated %,%ith earthquakes, hazardous materials incidents, fires, and other conditions that may impact infrastructure and impede emergency response. Each type of disaster requires focused planning to minimize the risks to life and property when a disaster occurs. The period following a disaster is often ven• difficult for communities and can be, at times, as devastating as the disaster itself. Cities that prepare ahead of time can reduce the fear, confusion, and loss resulting from catastrophic incidents. Planning efforts need to ensure access to critical facilities such as police and fire, hospitals and emergency care facilities, schools, utilities, roadways, and freeways. Rosemead participates in the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) that proNides a statewide framework for coordinating multi-agency responses to emergencies and disasters. The City's SEMS incorporates mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions, establishes lines of communication during emergencies, and standardizes incident command structures. The City has also complied N+ith the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) requirements to prepare a disaster mitigation plan in accordance tiith the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The plan represents Rosemead's commitment to reducing the risk from natural hazards and sen•es as a guide for the use of available CAN, resources. This plan also helps the State provide technical assistance and prioritize project funding. Rosemead contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff and the Los Angeles County Fire Department for pro,,ision of emergency response and law enforcement senices. This arrangement allows the City to more readily adjust staffing to meet the changing needs of businesses and residents. Also, County agencies can easily proNide supplemental responses from any other Sheriff or Fire Department stations. P A G E 5- 1 4 F E B R U A R Y t 6. 2 o i o PJ • Sources: CDMG, 1998, Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the EI Monte 7.5-minute quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 98. 15, - http: //gmw.consrv.co.gc v/shmp/download/ svalrpl/elmo_evol.pdf. ~ CDMG, 1999, Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the I El Monte 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, March 25, 1999, hftp;//gm w.consm.co.gov/sh mp/download/ pdf/ozn elmo.pdf; GIS data ft://www.conservotion.co.gov/cgs/shzp/ Pages/Index.ospx. '17 General Plan Iley Blvd i.-_ - - 2~ - o Guest st Marshall St Glendon Wy .J - steele Sl - v°O - pi pQc R St S•- U R I I I U1 I - - L. a ~ I Whitmors St. - j _ anofe St- \ -w Parks - Ge Y v, Garvey Av _ 0 dc IE y 0.v s e, o 111! elNavarns A ir6 I`a•3 { FemAY Se.. _ a rle _ _ • 1 I _ HlghcltffStl a - a a l j I 1 - K -St ~ J 111 _ Rwsh St ~S~d r ~ r s s l I F. nrY r a 7e~e ; I _ Pomorr Fwy I _ i Arb I. • 1. : • I i" Laoa: Lek, • Zones of Required Investigation: -30- Historically Highest Liquefaction 1 Groundwater Contours th i F t D ) n ep ee Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined Rosemead City Boundary in public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required. Sphere of Influence Boundary Earthquake-Induced Landslides Major Roods Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water t-++++++ Railroad conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements River/Wash such that mitigations as defined in Public Resources Code Section Fi 5 5 2693(c) would be required. gure - Areas Susceptible to Earthquake- 000 et 000 2 000 4 0 1 000 3 Induced Liquefaction & Landslides , , , , City of Rosemead June 2008 General Plan Update P U B L I C S A F E T Y 0 This page intentionally left blank. • P A G E 5- 1 6 F E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2 o i o 0 • • "General Plan _TTT { L A. sr w s< m IV_ San Bo-;'kno - _ Union PacMo RaHIOiC` 2.Deroth&-- a 8 r 6 - . - Em•non PI WhMron It ri. !yy~ Park St ; _ _ _ • ' - . Av f i . G/rv• Av Gsinmty < 4 I I ;rglyAvfriN•wm/_~N it `I Y si - noutr at o o • - Av. L Kelm S,. - _ _ _ L, fir.` ii ~ wRl r r rER Y I ~•U vC.L • •..I I. I NARROWS Gtr'-" B~~ Poa fly 4 a I RE CREA r10NA L,_I .I (_•Y/PARK'. f::LAE $Ource. Lf FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM), Los Angeles County. Updated 2008 Rosemead City Boundary FEMA Flood Zones Sphere of Influence Boundary A-Areas subject to inundation by a 100-year flood Major Roads AE - Areas subject to inundation by 100-year flood r++i r++ Railroad D - Unstudied areas, flood hazards are undetermined but flooding is possible - - River/Wash X -Areas of moderate or minimal hazard from flooding • Feet Figure 5-6 0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4.400 FEMA Flood Hazard Zones City of Rosemead December 2009 General Plan Update P U B L I C S A F E T Y This page intentionally left blank. • P A G E 5- 1 8 F E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2 o i o 0 KIT- -L- I, 10 Sources: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1983• Dam Inundation Map for the Santa Fe Dam, scale 1:24000, October 1983. Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Undated, Dam Inundation Map for the Garvey Reservoir, scale 1:24000. National Geographic Society, 2003. U.S. Topo Map, Whittier Narrows Dam. R~~~,CFMFA~I - "~~General Plan 54' ZyA, ~_L1 //f I ! - > ' ~_W NIT TI E,R 1 , v• ~NA'R R O W S- - R E C R E A i 1 0 N A t. - - - - ` - - % CAKE Rosemead City Boundary Flood Inundation Areas - Sphere of Influence Boundary Due to Catastrophic Dam Failure Major Roads Whittier Narrows Dam Railroad ® Garvey Reservoir - - River/Wash 0 Santa Fe Dam Feet Figure 5-7 0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 Dam Failure Inundation Areas City of Rosemead January 2009 General Plan Update • P U B L 1 C S A F E T Y This page intentionally left blank. Formatted: Heading z • P A G E 5- a o F E B R L' A R Y 1 6, 2 o P o • P U B L I C S A F E T Y • Fire Hazards Structural fires represent the primary fire hazard in Rosemead. Structural fires are generally caused by faulty equipment or lack of knowledge of fire prevention precautions. The potential for fire hazards increases when flammable and explosive materials are improperly stored, handled, or used. Planning for adequate fire protection and suppression in a denser built community like Rosemead becomes increasingly important due to aging buildings, and proximity of residences to commercial and industrial uses. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department has two fire stations in Rosemead: ■ Station 4, located at 2644 N. San Gabriel Boulevard ■ Station 42, located at 9319 E. Valley Boulevard As noted above, any County fire unit may respond to incidents in Rosemead, depending on need and availability. In particular, special hazardous materials response units from the stations are available. The Citv will coordinate with the Counh• Fire Department to implement fire hazard education and fire protection programs. In addition, the City Ail] coordinate with local water districts to ensure water pressure is adequate for fire fighting purposes. • Adequate water flow and pressure is determined through the application of Regulation No. 8 of the Fire Code. This code sets standards for new development and existing development. Hazardous Materials Commercial and industrial businesses in Rosemead and adjacent communities use hazardous materials. These businesses include dry cleaners, film processors, auto serice prodders, landscape contractors, and paint shops. Larger businesses can generate, use, and/or store large quantities of hazardous products. The current regulatory environment provides a high level of protection from the hazardous materials manufactured, transported to businesses, and stored tiithin Rosemead. Federal, State, and County agencies enforce regulations for hazardous waste generators and users. According to the California Environmental Protection Agency, as of 2oo6, approximateh 49 hazardous waste generators are located within the Citv of Rosemead. :tea' P A G E g - 2 1 F E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2 o f o 0 P U B L I C S A F E T Y i Rosemead's land use pattern generally separates industry from residential uses. However, commercial freight carriers transporting hazardous substances along the I-Io and SR-6o freeways, along major truck routes such as Rosemead Boulevard, or along railways present potential hazards. All motor carriers and drivers involved in the transportation of hazardous materials must comply with the requirements of federal and State regulations, and must apply for and obtain a hazardous materials transportation license from the California Highway Patrol. When transporting explosives, inhalation hazards, and highway route-controlled quantities of radioactive materials, safe routing, and safe stopping places are required. The City has established truck routes, these roadways that must be used by larger trucks and any vehicle specifically taming hazardous wastes and materials. The Los Angeles County Fire Department, Health Hazardous Materials Di%ision tracks hazardous materials handlers to ensure appropriate reporting and compliance. The Di\ision inspects businesses that generate hazardous waste, conducts criminal investigations, proxides site mitigation oversight, and undertakes emergency response operations. Such inspections reduce risks associated with exposure to hazardous materials and adverse environmental effects. The County Fire Department's Emergency Operations Section proNides 24-hour emergency response services to hazardous materials incidents. Emergency responders identiA. unknown substances, monitor spills and releases for safe and immediate mitigation, and identify responsible parties for payment of cleanup costs. The Inspection Division of the Fire Department's Emergency • Operations section inspects hazardous material handling and hazardous waste-generating businesses to assure compliance with applicable laws. Additionally, Inspection Division staff responds to medical waste emergencies, assists law enforcement agencies with response to illegal drug labs, and investigates resident and business complaints. The City hosts "Household Hazardous Waste Roundup" events sponsored by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles Counh and the Los Angeles County of Public Works. The County's Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program collection events allow residents to dispose of hazardous materials safely and at no cost to them. P A G E 5- s z I F E B R U A R Y 1 6 , 2 o i o 0 P U B L I C S A F E T Y ~ Statutes and Plans of Other Agencies The federal and State governments - in recognition of safety issues affecting broad geographic areas - have adopted programs Aith their public safety planning efforts. California Building Code Beginning in 2007, rather than using the Uniform Building Code, California instead adopted the 20o6 International Building Code (IBC) %ith substantial local amendments. The IBC is developed and published by the International Code Council (ICC), which was formed in 1994 by a merger of the three national building code publishers. During January and February 2007, the California Building Standards Commission (http://H%%„-.bsc.ca.goy) adopted, in sections, the 2007 International Building Code (IBC). The new California Building Code (CBC) became effective July 1, 20o6, and local codes were adopted 18o days later. Effective January 1, 2008, all new construction in Rosemead must be done in accordance with the 2007 CBC. The 2007 California Building Code (CBC) is a fully integrated code based on the 2oo6 International Building Code. Part 2 now also includes Title 24, Part 8 (California Historical Building Code) and Title 24, Part Io (California Existing • Building Code). The California Building Standards Code is comprised of twelve parts that incorporate public health and safety standards used in the design and construction of buildings in California. The codes also include standards for energy efficiency and access compliance for persons I,ith disabilities. Structures such as dams and free-wavs fall under criteria developed by various State and Federal agencies. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The 1972 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act seeks to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the placement of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The State Geologist is required to compile maps that delineate earthquake fault zones (.AP zones) along faults that are "sufficiently active" and "well defined." Cities and counties are responsible before issuing building permits for -I P A G E S- 2 3 F E B R L' A R Y t 6 s o i o 0 PL• B LI C SA F E T Y • a Project to assure that a geologic investigation is performed to demonstrate that proposed buildings Hill not be constructed across active faults. The fault evaluation and written report for the specific site must be prepared by a geologist registered in the State of California. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back a safe distance from the fault. A Project is carefully defined, but generally includes all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy, although some exceptions are allowed and local agencies can be more restrictive than state law requires. An AP zone map has been compiled by the State Geologist for the City of Rosemead area (CDMG, El Monte Quadrangle, 1991; Figure 5-3) and defines an AP zone for the Alhambra Hash fault within the City. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act California's 199o Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (http://,,%,"%•.consn•.ca.gov/cgs/shzp) requires the State Geologist (CGS) to compile maps identifying and describing seismic hazard zones in California, with emphasis given to the urbanized areas in Los Angeles, Ventura and Orange counties in southern California, and Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties in northern California. Seismic hazards considered include amplified shaking due to local geological or geotechnical conditions, liquefaction, and earthquake-induced landslides. Guidelines prepared by the State Mining and Geology Board identify the responsibilities of State and local agencies in the review- of development within seismic hazard zones. Development on a site that has been • designated as a seismic hazard zone requires a geotechnical report and local agency consideration of the policies and criteria established by the Mining and Geology Board. A seismic hazard zones map (Figure 5-5) delineates the areas within or near Rosemead that may be susceptible to liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslides. Unreinforced Masonry Building Law In 1986, California enacted a law that required local governments in Seismic Zone 4 to inventory unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, to establish a URM loss-reduction program and report progress to the state by 199o. Each local government can tailor its program to its own specifications to allow for each jurisdiction to take political, economic, and social priorities into account. This law requires 366 local governments in the highest Seismic Zone 4 to: P A G E 5- 2 4 I F E R R A K y 1 6. 2 0 1 0 0 P U B I. 1 C S A F E T Y ■ Inventory URM buildings within each jurisdiction. ■ Establish loss reduction programs for URM buildings by 1990. • Report progress to the California Seismic Safety Commission. In addition, the law recommends that local governments: ■ Adopt mandator- strengthening programs by ordinance. ■ Establish seismic retrofit standards. • Enact measures to reduce the number of occupants in LTRM buildings. California's Seismic Safety Commission (2oo6) monitors local government efforts to comply with this law and reports to the state's Legislature. The City of Rosemead had seven URMs; fire have been strengthened and two were demolished. The City is in compliance with mitigation requirements. National Flood Insurance Program The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Participating jurisdictions must exercise land use controls and purchase flood insurance as a prerequisite for recei%ing funds to purchase or build a structure in a flood hazard area. Rosemead has participated in the program since 1979 and as of 2007, no special flood hazard areas have been identified in the • City. The NFIP proNides federal flood insurance subsidies and federally financed loans for eligible property owners in flood- prone areas. Rosemead is identified on the National Flood Insurance Program's Flood Insurance Rate Maps as being within Zone an area outside the loo- and goo-year flood zones, and thus subject to minimal flooding. Nevertheless, nearly 25 percent of the flood claims received by FEMA on an annual basis occurred in areas outside the loo- and Soo-year flood zones. Associated hazards in hillside areas and at the base of hills or bluffs can include severe erosion, mudflow•s and debris flows. Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) All cities in California are required to adopt a SEMS plan to establish procedures and responsibilities of various Cite staff in the event of an emergency. A SEMS Plan allows cities to P A G E 5- s 5 FEBRUARY 1 6. 2 o 1 o 9 P U B L I C S A F E T Y • quickly respond to any large-scale disaster that requires a multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional response. National Incident Management System (NIMS) NIMS is the federal equivalent to the SEMS response plan. The Governors Office of Emergency Senices (OES) is the lead agency for the adoption, promotion, and implementation of NIMS. Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 prodded a new set of mitigation plan requirements that emphasize State and local jurisdictions to coordinate disaster mitigation planning and implementation. States are encouraged to complete a "Standard" or an "Enhanced" Natural Mitigation Plan. "Enhanced" plans demonstrate increased coordination of mitigation acti%ities at the State level, and if completed and approved, Hill increase the amount of funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. California recently updated its State Hazard Mitigation Plan which will require approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by October 8, 2007. The State of California Plan was adopted on • October 7, 2007 and approved by FEMA Region IX on December 17, 2007. USA PATRIOT Act Signed into law on October 26, 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement. The Act included the identification of federal crimes for attacks on public transportation and the use of biological weapons, and increased government surveillance powers to track actiNities related to homeland securit- and terrorism. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements The Public Safety Element relates most closely to the Land Use Element. Policies and plans in the Public Safety Element are P A G E 5- 2 6 F E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2 o 1 o 0 P U B L I C S A F E T Y • designed to protect existing and planned land uses from specific types of hazards. Issues, Goals, and Policies Certain human actiNities and natural conditions discussed in the Public Safety Element create hazards in Rosemead. These hazards in turn pose risks to individuals and properties that affect how we may develop and use property. Risk from such hazards can be reduced or avoided by recognizing the hazards and adopting and implementing land use and emergency response policies that provide the degree of protection the community desires. These goals, policies, and implementation actions focus on: (1) reducing risks from natural hazards; (2) preparing for emergency situations; and (3) reducing risks from hazards associated -,kith hazardous materials. Natural Hazards This section presents information on hazards related to geologic and soil units, active and potentially active faults, earthquakes, secondan• seismic effects (e.g., liquefaction and dam inundation flooding) that affect policy and long-range • planning in the City of Rosemead. Geology and Soil Hazards Geotechnical and engineering geology reports prepared for development and re-development projects in the City are required to identity geologic and soil hazards, as well as routine geologic and soils conditions important to the design and construction of the project (Figure 5-1). These reports are required to undergo review by qualified professional engineers and geologists to assure that the information, results, conclusions, and recommendations meet the state of the professional practice. Primary hazards considered are landslides, mudflows, general slope instability, unstable soils due to expansion or consolidation, subsidence, and shallow groundwater. Where these hazards are present, damage to structures and potentially serious injuries to indiNiduals can occur. Proper mitigation of these hazards is required to prevent or reduce the potential damage to structures, injuries, and the loss of life. The City Planning, Building and Safety, and Public Works Departments shall continue to collectively assure P A G E 5- 2 7 F E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2 0 J 0 0 P U B 1. 1 C S A F E T V that proper reports are prepared, re,,iewed, and approved in accordance with Cite, County, State, and Federal guidelines, as applicable. Seismic/Earthquake Ground Shaking Hazards As discussed above, there are eleven known faults within about 30 miles of Rosemead (shown on Figure 5-2) that pose an earthquake ground shaking hazard to the City of Rosemead. Standard construction (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) is governed by the California Building Code (currently the 2007 version) and the City must adopt measures necessary to assure that these codes are followed. Knowledge of the sedimentan basin depth and geometry beneath the Cite of Rosemead are important for the proper estimation of earthquake ground motions. The expected moment magnitudes and median peak horizontal ground accelerations shown in Table 5-1 (Appendix A) are for planning purposes; individual projects require site-specific design earthquake determinations depending upon the uses associated with the project and whether the project is considered an essential services facility or other type of important structure. Projects in the Cih, may fall within the jurisdiction of County, State, or Federal agencies (e.g., Caltrans, DiNision of the State Architect, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency) with more or less stringent earthquake design criteria. It is the responsibility of the City to protect the lives and property of the citizens of Rosemead by submitting input to these agencies to assure, to the maximum degree possible, their consideration for the application of the proper earthquake design factors. • Active and Potentially Active Surface Fault Rupture Hazard Total damage/collapse of structures and severe injury can result if surface rupture occurs beneath or in the immediate Nicinih, of a building. Based on the geologic, seismic, groundwater, and tectonic/fault studies that have been conducted to date within and adjacent to the City of Rosemead. it is concluded that: (1) the Alhambra Wash fault (a trace of Whittier fault as is the East Montebello fault) is the only known active surface fault crossing the City and studies required by the APEFZ Act (Figure 5-3) are necessary; (2) the northwest- trending escarpment of Bullard and Lettis (1993), and various aerial photograph lineaments described by Treiman (1991; Figure 5-4), should be considered as potentially active faults with 200400t wide "fault hazard management zones" (FHMZs) requiring special investigation on a case-by-case basis for new or significantly modified "important" facilities (defined below), and (3) the northwest trending groundwater barrier (CDN'R, P A G E 5- 2 8 F E B R U A R F f 6. 2 o l o is P U B L I C S A F E T Y • 1966) in east-central Rosemead is not considered to be active and is not included with a FHMZ. Secondary Seismic Hazards Local geological conditions may create additional hazards associated with seismic activity. Large and moderate earthquakes produce ground-shaking effects that may result in ground failure. Figure 5-5 shows areas susceptible to seismically induced liquefaction. In locations where shallow groundwater levels and loose, unconsolidated soils occur together, a condition called liquefaction can occur, when the area is subjected to strong ground shaking. Soils that liquefy lose the ability to support structures; buildings may sink or tilt, with the potential for extensive structural damage. Liquefaction presents the most prominent secondary earthquake ground failure issue in Rosemead. Seismically induced landslides have the potential to occur in a limited area in the south of Rosemead, but proper geotechnical investigation and mitigation will minimize these secondary seismic hazards. Liquefaction-related lateral spreads can occur adjacent to stream channels and deep washes that provide a free face toward which the liquefied mass of soil fails. Lateral spreads can cause extensive damage to pipelines, utilities, bridges, roads and other structures. California law (Seismic Hazard Mapping Act) requires identification of liquefaction-susceptible zones, where the dynamic (under seismic conditions) stability of the foundation soils must be investigated, and seismically-induced landslide zones, where the stability of hill slopes must be evaluated. Within these areas, geologic studies must be completed and • countermeasures undertaken in the design and construction of important infrastructure and buildings for human occupancy. California law also requires disclosure of these hazards as a part of all real estate transactions within the identified areas. The City shall continue to (i) apply the State seismic hazard zoning regulations at the earliest possible stage in the development process, (2) identiA. these hazards at the project development permit stage to assure proper design measures are implemented, and (3) inform at an early stage applicants planning to develop heaNi- structures or structures over tw•o- stories that the areas with historic high groundwater less than 3o-feet deep are most susceptible to liquefaction and lateral spread landslides where adjacent to channel-type slopes. Dam Inundation Flooding Hazards Rosemead does not have natural floodplain areas, although it is bordered by the Rio Hondo in its eastern and southeastern extremes. Dam failure can be caused by strong earthquake ground shaking or a seiche event, erosion, improper siting and/or design, and rapidly rising floodwaters during heavy P A C E 5- z 9 F E B R U A R Y t 6 z o o 0 P U B L I C S A F E TV • storms. Such a dam failure can be instantaneous or gradual, depending on many factors (e.g., the cause and dams building materials). Resulting release of water can also be instantaneous or gradual, with either situation potentially causing injuries, loss of life, property damage, displacement of persons residing within the inundation path, and damage to infrastructure. Portions of the City are located within dam inundation areas for the Whittier Narrows Dam, Santa Fe Dam/Reservoir, and Garvey Dam/Reservoir (Figure 5-6). Given the City's distance from the Pacific Ocean, it's exposure to tsunami hazards resulting from offshore earthquakes is nil. Natural Hazard-Related Goals and Policies The overarching natural hazard related goal is stated below to proNide the basic purpose and strate&v adopted by the City of Rosemead to address safety concerns posed by natural hazards. Goal i has several policies that are more specific guidelines and tactics that will be used to meet Goal i. Finally, implementation actions, the specific steps to be taken to satisf - the goal and policies, are presented in a subsequent section. Underlying Goal i is the precept that all buildings and structures in the Cite of Rosemead should conform to the appropriate building standards in order to protect every citizen to the degree practical. In consideration of certain hazard zones referred to in the Safety Element, the City has defined the category "Important" building or structure in considering new or substantially refurbished existing facilities that should receive increased consideration for geologic, soil, seismic/earthquake, and flood hazard avoidance. An important facility, which would not apply to existing buildings of the types • described below unless substantial refurbishment were proposed, would be defined by the City Planning Director, the City Engineer, and the City Building Official for each case, as appropriate. In general "Important" would include, but not necessarily be limited to: (1) One whose function is judged as essential following a severe natural hazard such as an earthquake, e.g., police, fire, City communications center, and hospitals, in order to pro%ide for the safety and well- being of the citizens of Rosemead; (2) A structure that is critical to the Citv's recovers following a severe earthquake, i.e., key transportation/evacuation routes, bridges, over/underpasses, electrical substations and towers, natural gas/fuel pipelines; (3) Structures that may be sensitive to earthquake hazards (e.g., liquefaction and ground shaking), e.g., buildings greater than 2-stories, pre-1971 tilt-ups, non-retrofitted buildings, soft-stony construction, P A G E 5. 3 0 F E B R U A R Y 1 6 . 2 0 1 o P U B L I C S A F E T Y • non-ductile reinforced concrete, and parking garages; and (4) Buildings that may have significant populations, and/or high-population densities, i.e., schools/pre- schools, nursing homes, and locations with limited mobility populations. Goal is The City of Rosemead will act in cooperation with federal, State, and County agencies responsible for the enforcement of planning statutes, environmental laws, and building codes to minimize, to the extent practical, risks to people and property damage, risks related economic and social disruption, and other impacts resulting from 1) geologic and soil hazards, 2) seismic hazards including primary and secondary effects of seismic shaking, fault rupture, and other earthquake-induced ground deformation in Rosemead, and 3) dam failure-induced flood and inundation hazards, while reducing the disaster recovery time due to hazard incidents in Rosemead. The City of Rosemead will consider undertaking a HAZUS-based loss estimation analysis to more fully quantify potential physical damage, economic loss, and social impacts from these events. Policy- I.I: Geology and Soil Hazards a) Encourage development in low hazards areas and implement actions that minimize changes to the natural topography and drainages, while protecting public safety- and reducing potential property damage due to geologic and soil hazards through the use of proper design and construction techniques. b) Assure that all aspects of the geotechnical and engineering geology evaluation process (planning, investigation, analysis, reporting, re-dew, construction, and operations) for new development and redevelopment are conducted, and independently reNiewed, by qualified professionals. Policy 1.2: Earthquake and Fault Hazards a) Minimize the exposure of people and property to primary and secondary earthquake- P A G E 5- 3 1 1' E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2 0 1 0 P U B L ! C S A F E T Y related hazards, while allowing properly designed projects to be developed in appropriate locations. b) Assure that all aspects of the earthquake, fault rupture, liquefaction, and related seismic hazard evaluation process (planning, investigation, analysis, reporting, review, construction, and operations) for new development and redevelopment are conducted, and independently reviewed, by qualified professionals. Policy 1.3 klood Hazards Deleted: Dam Inundation a) Minimize development of Important Facilities in jareas ++ith _ potential _for flood Deleted: flood-prone inundation to the extent possible in order to protect public safety and reduce potential property damage due to dam failure-induced flooding. Maintain the structural and operational integrity of essential public facilities durine tloodine. b) Assure that all aspects of the dam failure flood/ inundation evaluation process (planning, investigation, analysis, reporting, review, construction, and operations) for new development and redevelopment are conducted, and independently reviewed, by qualified professionals. • Policy 1.4 Disaster Preparedness and Communication a) Create and maintain emergency preparedness and evacuation plans; create public information/education programs to help assure coordinated response, recovery, and mitigation efforts carried out by the City and other governmental agencies. b) Foster cooperation with neighboring cities and agencies to enhance mutual aid opportunities following natural hazard events. P A G E S- 3 s 0 flood protection P U B L I C S A F E T Y 0 Hazards Due to Human Activities Goal 2: Ensure safety of all City residents and local workers from hazardous wastes and the hazards associated with the transport of such wastes. Policy 2.1: Work with the Los Angeles County Fire Department to identity and maintain an up-to- date database of all producers, users, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes. Policy 2.2: Strictly enforce the use of designated truck routes for vehicles transporting hazardous materials (Figure 5-8). Policy 2.3: Support, develop and participates in safety hazard awareness programs that provide for the safe and efficient collection and disposal of household hazardous wastes. Policy 2.4: Review in detail any industrial development proposed to be located adjacent to a residential use to ensure that necessary safeguards are included to minimize the risk to residential uses. Safeguards may include, for example, appropriate siting of buildings and loading areas, on-site emergency response equipment or supplies, and barrier wails. P A G E 5- 3 3 F E B R U A R Y 1 6. z a t o 0 P U B L I C S A F E T Y 0 This page intentionally left blank. • P A G E 3 4 I F E R R U ► R Y 1 6. 2 0 t o • 0 • Ll:N General Plan `Ff ~ .ra I I i _ ■ _ . Y I r [ r I Guess St m - Yt <i 3 c! Ra h at I -t I - 'qc-v! I 1' Marshall St t 11I- ~ - Glandon in, Union • \ sonS L . Irran AV EnmrsDaM - < < III < <I - - pl AV nl i _ > A WrIVI ha he1M5 of n y I_-- +a~~ t _ • r f 7 IN NI T T,1 ER N A R R O W $ i t• P 0`6 41 _ 1. I + RE C R.E AT/a N AL / (!E- Pomona Fwy\~ / • i.•~. LAKE Important Facilities: Evacuation Routes For more information on Important Facilities see site number and refer to Table 5-3. Truck and Evacuation Routes may • Hospital/Nursing Home 0 School overlap in some areas. • Public Facility lei Place of Worship Truck/Hazardous Materials Transport Routes Emergency Shelters All Emergency Shelters are Important Facilities. The colon are tt• Evacuation Routes associated to the categories listed above under Important Facilities. Medical Facilities Potential Emergency Center Fire Station Source: City of Rosemead, DMP Inc. Figure 5-8 II F-I Feet 0 1,0130 2,000 3,000 4,000 Important Facilities City of Rosemead June 2008 General Plan Update P U B L I C S A F E TV This page intentionally left blank. • P A G E 5- 3 6 I F E B R U A R 1' i o. 2o io 0 P U B L I C S A F E T Y Fire Protection and Law Enforcement The Los Angeles County Fire Department protiides service from two stations in Rosemead. The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department serves the Cit of Rosemead from the nearby Temple Station. In addition to prodding patrol and investigative services, the Sheriff offers a broad range of support services, including Neighborhood Watch coordination, community education programs, drug prevention education for school children, and homeland security. A key crime prevention program the Department runs is the Community/Law Enforcement Partnership Program, or CLEPP. Sheriffs Department staff shall help communities mobilize and organize against gangs, drugs, and violence by working through schools, community-based organizations, local businesses, churches, residents, and local governments. Goal 3: Provide high levels of public safety, emergency response, and lair enforcement services. Policy 3.1: Ensure that current applicable building codes and fire codes are maintained and implemented. Policy 3.2: Include the Fire Department in the review • process of proposed projects to ensure that fire prevention and suppression features have been considered in the overall design. Policy 3.3: Require that any structures identified as deficient in fire protection or lacking adequate suppression deNices make recommended improvements in a time frame established by the Fire Department. Policy 3.4: Work with local water service prodders to ensure that private water distribution and supply facilities have adequate capacity to meet both the water supply needs of the community and required fire flows. Service planning should include methods to address earth quake induced damage to water storage and distribution facilities. P A G E 5- 3 7 F E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2 0 o C7 P U B L I C S A F E T Y • Policy 3.5: Provide for all street signs and property address signs to be clearly marked and visible to emergency personnel. Policy 3.6: Annually assess the level and quality of services prodded by the County Sheriff and County Fire Department, and adjust the service levels as needed to meet changing community needs. Policy 3.7: Take full advantage of community policing, education, and crime prevention programs available through the County Sheriffs Department. Policy 3.8: Incorporate crime prevention considerations into the development project review process, where applicable. Policy 3.9: Develop and implement a periodic inspection program for multi-family units over three units and mixed-use projects. Policy3.io: Consider the adoption of a cit%%ide emergency evacuation plan and emergency shelter plan. Policy Map and Plan Rosemead's approach to mitigating public safety hazards and reducing loss of life, injury, and property damage in the City focuses on emergency preparedness. The policies contained in this element include requirements that the City maintain an up-to-date regional emergency response system, procedures for educating the public about the importance of emergency preparedness, and programs to ensure that emergency equipment and supplies are maintained to adequately meet the needs of the City in an emergency situation. Implementation of the goals and policies in this Element will have the beneficial effect of reducing potential fire hazards in the City. The replacement of older, deteriorating structures and the requirement that owners maintain their properties and incorporate of up-to-date fire-suppression devices in structures will reduce the occurrence of structural fires in the Cit•. Figure 5-8 identifies designated hazardous materials transport routes and evacuation routes, as well as fire stations, medical facilities, and potential emergency centers. The City has identified local schools as potential sites for emergency P A G E g- 8 F E B R U A R Y 1 6. 2 0 1 0 11 P U B L I C S A F E T Y centers. Haring recommended sites aill expedite the time necessary to set up emergence centers such as shelters. Implementation Actions Natural Hazard Safety Goal is The City of Rosemead will act in cooperation with federal, State, and County agencies responsible for the enforcement of planning statutes, environmental laws, and building codes to minimize, to the extent practical, risks to people and property damage, risks related to economic and social disruption, and other impacts resulting from 1) geologic and soil hazards, 2) seismic hazards, including primary and secondary effects of seismic shaking, fault rupture, and other earthquake-induced ground deformation in Rosemead, and 3) dam failure-induced flood and inundation hazards, while reducing the disaster recovery time due to hazard • incidents in Rosemead. The City of Rosemead will consider undertaking a HAZUS-based loss estimation analysis to more fully quantify potential physical damage, economic loss, and social impacts from these events. Action i.1 Reyiew County and special district capital improvement plans for consistency with the seismic safety policies governing the location of critical public facilities. Action 1.2 Inspect critical public facilities for structural integrity, and require correction as necessary. Action 1.3 Require all private roads to conform to the existing Cite standards concerning safety and the movement of emergence vehicles. P A G E S- 3 9 F E B R U A R Y , 6. 2 o 1 o 0 P U B L I C S A F E TV • Action 1.4 Develop a public information program on, hazard prevention and disaster response and disseminate information on public safety to all residents and businesses in the City on a regular basis. Action 1.5 Create a website or link on the Cite of Rosemead website that includes links to readily available published geologic, soil, and earthquake hazard maps covering the City, and links to the City statutes, plans, and codes governing development and re-development projects. Use the site to communicate to the public information about geologic and soil, seismic, and dam inundation flood hazards and City requirements, including but not limited to a) specify sources to identifi• licensed professionals such as California Registered Geotechnical Engineers and Certified Engineering Geologists, b) seismic design and construction requirements for individuals and developers applicable to new and existing property improvements, c) Cit)' emergency preparedness plans, and d) home- or business-based emergency preparedness procedures and resources. Action 1.6 Identifi• evacuation routes and update on a regular basis the Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan (as required by Government Code Section 65302) that addresses structural hazards, landslides and slope stabilih, • liquefaction, inundation from dam failure, seismic activity, and other natural disasters. Action 1.7 Encourage only the minimum grading neeessarn to create suitably sized and safe building areas. Action 1.8 Avoid grading and development that requires filling natural drainages or changing natural surface water flow patterns. Action 1.9 As required by law and statute, the City shall implement applicable federal, State, and County regulations related to geologic and soils investigations, analyses, designs, and construction, including but not limited to implementing the most up-to-date California Building Code (CSC) provisions regarding lateral forces (Chapter 23) and grading (Chapter 70), and incorporate and adopt Los Angeles County amendments to the CBC. P A G E 5- q o F E B R U A R Y 1 6 . 2 0 1 0 P U B 1. 1 C S A F E T Y Action i.io Require proper geotechnical and engineering geological investigations and reports that address and evaluate necessan• anah•ses of (for example) soil foundation conditions (i.e., expansivity, collapse, seismic settlement), slope stability, surface and subsurface water, and provide necessan• design recommendations for grading and site stability, such as excavation, fill placement, and stabilization or remediation measures. Action 1.11 Require routine inspection of grading operations by properly qualified City representatives to assure site safety and compatibility kith approved plans and specifications. Action 1.12 Regularly review the technical data on public safety. seismic safety. and floodine safety for use in the planning process and undertake revisions or updates to the Public Safeh• Element as needed. Action 1.13 Enact ordinances for the evaluation and abatement of structural hazards (i.e., parapet ordinance and hazardous building ordinance requiring repair, rehabilitation, or demolition of hazardous structures follo-.%ing structural evaluation). As appropriate, prepare multi- lingual materials that discuss hazardous structures and provide suggestions for the • mitigation of structural hazards. Action I.14 Required geological studies shall be conducted by California Certified Engineering Geologists folloHing the guidelines published by the California Geological Survey and the State Mining and Geolog_t7 Board, and geotechnical studies shall be conducted by California Registered Geotechnical Engineers. Action 1.15 Required liquefaction assessment studies shall be conducted in accordance Hith (a) the California Geological Surveys Special Publication 117: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, (b) the Southern California Earthquake Center's (too; or subsequent document, as amended) procedures to implement Special Publication 117 - Liquefaction Hazards, and (c) the Earthquake Engineering Research Center's Report No. - ;elated: aoa P A G E 5- 4 1 F E B R U A R Y a 6. x o 1 o 0 P U B L I C S A F E T Y • EERC-2003-6; Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified and Consistent Framework. Required slope stabilih analyses shall be conducted in accordance Aith California Geological Survey's Special Publication 117: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, and the Southern California Earthquake Center's (2002 or subsequent document, as amended) guidelines for evaluating and mitigating landslide hazards. Action 1.16 As required by law and statute, the City shall implement applicable federal, State, and County regulations related to earthquake hazard investigations, analyses, designs, and construction, including but not limited to the adoption of applicable sections of the current California Building Code and the County of Los Angeles Geotechnical Guidelines, and compliance with the State Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requirements. Action 1.17 Ensure that no structure for human occupancN, other than single-family wood-frame and steel- frame dwellings that are less than three stories and are not part of a development of four units or more, shall be permitted within fifh• feet of an active fault trace as defined by geologic investigations conducted in accordance with the intent of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault • Zoning Act, and the guidelines contained in the California geological sun,eY notes 48 and 49• Action 1.18 Encourage most new construction in areas with a minimum of identified earthquake-related and flood-related hazards. Action 1.19 Minimize to the maximum extent practical the construction of important structures (e.g., critical, essential, sensitive, and high-occupancy buildings and critical infrastructure) within known, or suspected earthquake-related hazard zones. Action 1.2o The City shall require geologic and seismic studies as part of Important Facilities development proposals within established 200- foot %side Fault Hazard Management Zones (FHMZ) along possible or suspected fault- P A G E 5- 4 2 F E B R U A R Y j 6. z o 1 o 0 P U B L I C S A F E T Y • related features (loo-feet on either side) identified in the State Fault Evaluation Report 222 (Treiman, 1991; as shown on Figure 5-3), in other peer-reviewed reports (e.g., Bullard and Lettis, 1993), and in future Cit• fault hazard management zone study reports (as applicable). Within the FHMZ along the escarpment of Bullard and Lettis (1993) investigations shall be conducted for facilities as required under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (APEFZ) only if new data are developed for an Important Facility investigation in this FHMZ or from some outside study (e.g., California Geological Survey, U. S. Geological Survey, or the Southern California Earthquake Center) that indicates this escarpment is sufficiently active to require such APEFZ-level investigations. Investigation and reporting requirements for FHMZs shall mirror those for Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones and California Geological Survey Notes 48 and 49. FHMZs shall be updated periodically based on the results of studies conducted in the City, which may cause the FHMZs to the expanded, reduced, or removed. Action 1.21 Where construction of important structures (e.g., critical, essential, sensitive, and high- occupancy buildings and critical infrastructure) ,Aithin known, or suspected earthquake-related hazard zones is proposed, require proper geotechnical and engineering geology investigations and reports that include necessary analyses of (for example) strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, lateral spreading, ground subsidence and slope instability, and that provide necessary design recommendations for grading and site stability, such as building setbacks, special foundation considerations, dewatering, ground improvement, and other stabilization or remediation measures. Action 1.22 Require routine and special inspection of investigation sites (e.g., fault exploration trenches) and grading operations by properly qualified City representatives to assure scientifically adequate methods, site safety, and compatibility with approved plans and specifications. P A G E 5- 4 3 F E B R V A R Y 1 6 z o o 0 P U B L I C S A F E TV • Action 1.23 The Cit., shall monitor engineering and scientific studies affecting development or re- development in areas of known or suspected earthquake-related hazards that may impact the Cithv, and shall ensure that site-specific data, up- to-date geologic knowledge, and expert peer - (independent third party) re+iew are incorporated into the planning, design, construction, and inspection stages of important project structures (e.g., critical, essential, sensitive, and high-occupancy buildings and critical infrastructure). Action 1.24 As required by law and statute, the City shall implement, where applicable, federal, State, and County regulations related to hydrology and flood investigations, analyses, designs, and construction, including but not limited to continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Action 1.25 Minimize to the maximum extent practical the construction of Important Facilities (e.g., critical, essential, sensitive, and high-occupancy buildings and critical infrastructure) within potential dam failure-induced flood /inundation areas. Action 1.26 Require proper hydrology and flooding investigations and reports that include necessary anah•ses of (for example) pre- and post- development flow characteristics, changes to surface drainage network, potential environmental impacts on existing development down-gradient from new construction in upstream areas, and adequacy of current and proposed culverts, debris basins, and storm drain svstems. Action 1.27 A$ appropriate, require new development to be designed to pro+ide protection from potential impacts of flooding resulting from dam inundation, consistent with evohing State and federal guidelines and the City's flood plain management ordinance, and as directed be the City En Oneer, Action 1.28 Assess the level of impact on existing public facilities if flooding was to occur. DevelU strategies to minimize impacts and pro%ide continued operation of essential public facilities. P A G E S- 4 4 11 P U B L I C S A F E T Y Ctinn 1.29 Consult with public a gencies that have resp-Qnsibility for flood pro tection including but not limited to the Federal Emergence Management Agency, th e VmN- Carps of Engineers, the California Department of Water Resources, the California Office of Emergence S L i h l l d l Di i ces. t os Ange es F er e and the Metropolitan Wate oo Contro str ct. r District of Southern California regarding data, flood hazard zones, best practices, and emergen ce response. Action i.,io Consistent with Government Code %5302(a). annually rewiewy those areas covered by the General Plan that are subject to flooding identified by flood plain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergence Management Agency or the California Department of Water Resources. Action 1.31 Establish procedures for reNiewwing subdi%isions and other development permit applications to ensure safety from seismic and geologic hazards, including liquefaction areas, slope stability, and ground shaking zones. The City shall retain a California certified engineering geologist(s) and a California registered geotechnical engineer(s), either on staff or on a contract basis, to rewiewy all engineering geologic and geotechnical studies and grading operations for new development or redevelopment, including but not limited to geotechnical evaluations, liquefaction studies, • and fault rupture evaluations. Each reviewer shall have a minimum of io years of practical experience in their respective fields, shall be independent of development work being conducted in the City within 12 months before or after the subject reviews, and shall otherwise not have a conflict-of-interest regarding the project or the project participants. Action 1.32 The City recognizes the need to consider the latest state-of-knowledge related to the earthquake analysis and considerations for the design of structures and facilities pursuant to the current version of the California Building Code. Knowyledge of the sedimentan- basin depth and geometry beneath the Cih• of Rosemead are important for the proper estimation of earthquake ground motions. In addition to the amplifications and resonances caused by shallows softer alluxium, there are complex interactions P A G E 5- 4 5 2 0 1 0 0 P U B L I C S A F E T Y • between the three dimensional geometry of the basin and the seismic waves that have been shorn to increase the amplitude and duration of shaking during an earthquake. Interactions may focus the wave energy to a surface location from the bottom of the basin leading to a concentration of intensit- of shaking in small regions. Likewise, the edges of basins appear to trap incoming seismic waves, thereby increasing the duration of shaking in the basin. Basin depth and geometry can be estimated using tools available through the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) website, which will assist developers and Cite building officials in ensuring compliance with the 2-percent in 5o- years event requirements in the 2007 CBC. Other information important to proper code compliance includes consideration of (a) distant large duration/large magnitude earthquakes, (b) recently developed Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) relationships, (c) ongoing updates to U. S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey databases. The City is committed to assist in providing access to these tools and databases to enhance the public safety in Rosemead. P A G E 5- 4 6 F E B R C A R Y 1 6. s o l o 0 P U B L I C S A F E T Y 0 Human Activities Hazard Safety Goal 2: Ensure the safety of all City residents and workers from hazardous wastes and the hazards associated with the transport of such wastes. Action 2.1 Coordinate with the Los Angeles County Fire Department's Health Hazardous Materials Division to identifi• and mitigate hazardous materials dangers. Action 2.2 Enforce the use of designated routes for truck travel with signage, information proNided to businesses and coordination with Sheriffs Department staff. Action 2.3 Require that producers, users, and transporters of hazardous materials comply with State and federal regulations requiring identification of these materials on signs posted on the exterior of buildings or storage facilities containing such materials, and on trucks or vehicles transporting hazardous substances through the City. Action 2.4 Coordinate with the Los Angeles Count} . Department of Public Works to increase outreach and participation in the County's Household Hazardous Waste Collection events within the City. Increase %isibility of the County's program through newspapers, the Citi's website, and posted information at public facilities and Cite-sponsored events. Action 2.5 Prohibit new businesses that produce or transport hazardous wastes from locating in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Update the CitY's zoning ordinance to limit these businesses to industrial zones not adjacent to residential areas, and limit the permitted uses for business in or adjacent to residential areas. P A G E 5- 4 7 F E B R U A R Y 6 n ~ n 0 P U B L I C S A F E T Y Goal 3: Provide high levels of public safety, emergency response, and law enforcement services. Action 3.1 Cooperate Aith the Los Angeles County Fire Department in the preparation of a Fire Prevention Program to reduce the extent of damage resulting from fire. Action 3.2 Meet annually, if not more frequently, with County Fire Department officials to assess how senices are provided and whether any changes are required in response to City and/or County needs. Action 3.3 Use public education activities to inform residents, businesses, and City staff about community policing and crime prevention Action 3.4 Implement Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) features with the establishment of specific design criteria, and apply those criteria to proposed projects through the development project review process. Action 3.5 Continually address expected effects of climate change that may impact public safety, including increased risk of wildfires, flooding and sea level rise, salt water intrusion; and health effects of increased heat and ozone, through appropriate policies and programs. Action 3.6 Consider adopting programs for the purchase, transfer or extinguishment of development rights in high-risk areas. Action 3.7 Monitor the impacts of climate change. Use adaptive management to develop new strategies, and modify existing strategies, to respond to the impacts of climate change. P A G E 5- 4 8 0 A C K N O W L E D T E M E N T S 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS - City Council • Margaret Clark, Mayor Gary Taylor Sandra Armenta Polly Low Steven Ly ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN Planning Commission Traffic Commission Diana Herrera, Chair William Alarcon Nancy Eng Joan Hunter Victor Ruiz Howard Masuda, Chair Joanne Russell Keno Deary, Sr. Brian Lewin Jean Hall City Staff Jeff Allred, City Manager Joseph Montes, City Attorney Matt Hawkesworth, Assistant City Manager Stan Wong, Community Development Director Sheri Bermejo, Principal Planner Paul Garry, Senior Planner Lily Trinh, Assistant Planner Jim Donovan, Building Official Lou LeBlanc, City Engineer Michelle Ramirez, Economic Development Administrator Aileen Flores, Public Affairs Manager • PAGE 7 - 1 F E B R U A R Y 1 6, 2 0 1 0 A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S • Consultants to the City Hogle-Ireland, Inc. 201 South Lake Avenue, Suite 3o8 Pasadena, California 911o1 626.356.446o KOA 1055 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300 Monterey Park, California 91754 323.26o.4703 Wilson Geosciences 191o Pinecrest Drive Altadena, CA 91o01 626.791.1589 Urban Crossroads 41 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 926o6 949.66o.19oo • • P A G E 7 -2 0 C TO BE R 2 0 o 8 "grM~An General Plan JI ~ . r■ I'••~tw~~oh al GrandAv ~f%cR ,III , • ~ al~r J 1 ii, Nil 4 I~ k ~jll~ a~All'•► RdI Miss/oh. I~ Q ~Lwer Azusa 4Nv Faloh w 1 it ° m Q ~rI i egh 8, t ulllllII •„I I a it M ~ cI r ` 3 i IIIIfillil'I I ~ , ` w h! 1 I I ,-III I I fi., ValleY{Blvd t ,r • ~I „ - Steele 5t I :I I a a 35■ ~s GUESS St p ;i m v ■I AI ¢ u o • Ralph St' v ■ t a 3 E x Ti V i m 1 w4 L o m > w y ■w t ; o ds :11 , Marshall St ■ VIII E GlendonW~_ II Ali in ■ sII F Union Pacific Railroad San Bernardino wY i?i, It \ i. . - - - ~r = r` Artson St I > IJ Q ~I s r HellmanAv ~'Gfl r of a } ~ 1 Ilir ' ' Y tm a gi 11 III C ,>J I{ ft1j ~ DorothySt w o : II I~ c m III III tI 3iI - - 11 EmersonPl ■ II 1uu III 1Whltmore St` III III , Whitmore St ■ II I, 1_I l~~~. I Park St ~~Game _ s, 0AL r-l evgft • 9 Y p Newmark Av' a w. .a Li a a ,1 ~ w 7Av1 w I~ i I ■ c 3■ Garvalla Av 8 a. z 14 Highcliff St y ~l fI ' Graves Av err -l ~C9 % Klin ~ rman St ' • loo~ No 711111W~►.,~ - I v i ...I flfi r~~rl pill \ ■ I & Kelm st n ;N ~ .r~.l Rush Std q ■ t I r it 111 ■rr .r r'`_ • ~ ` >I a " r I ■.b e/ _0 ~A WN/TTIER / 4r • r i NARROWS 0C% -6P ~I tl l Pomona Fwy 8(oG I S~ - N t ANNINIM LEGG 1 RECREATIONAL Pomona Fwy ■ F _ P A R K i Montebello Blvd I • "}r C LAKE l Existing General Plan Land Use to Proposed General Plan Land Use 0 Low Density to Commercial Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac) to Mixed Use: Industrial/Commercial _ Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac) to Commercial Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (0-30 du/ac) to Mixed Use: Industrial/Commercial Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (0-30 du/ac) to Commercial Medium Density to Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac) to High Density ® Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac) to Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (0-30 du/ac) to High Density Public Facility to Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac) to Low Density Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac) to Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (60 du/ac) 0 Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (0-30 du/ac) to Low Density - Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac) to Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac) to Medium Density ® Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (3145 du/ac) to High intensity Commercial Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (0-30 du/ac) to Medium Density EXHIBIT A Source: City of Rosemead Feet 0 2,000 4,000 Proposed Land Use Changes City of Rosemead March 2, 2010 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: MARCH 1, 2010 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09-01 SUMMARY The City of Rosemead proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to designate four key areas (nodes) in the City for mixed-use development with limitations on both residential density and building height. The current General Plan allows for mixed-use development along all major commercial corridors in the City. General Plan Amendment 09-01 also proposes the creation of a new commercial Specific Plan land use designation over two commercial areas of the City. The Specific Plan land use designation would affect the following properties: 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, 7867, 7907, 7913, 7919, 7931, 7951, and 8001 Garvey Avenue, 3011 and 3033 Denton Avenue, and 7938 Virginia Street. Lastly, General Plan Amendment 09-01 also includes amending the Circulation Element, the Resource Management Element, and the Public Safety Element to address the proposed land use changes and to comply with Assembly Bill 162 (AB 162). Attached is a map (Exhibit A), which highlights the properties that will be affected by this General Plan Amendment. The Draft General Plan document has been attached as Exhibit B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-03 (Exhibit C), a resolution directing staff to prepare an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) which was certified by the City Council on October 14, 2008, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission RECOMMEND that the City Council consider the environmental determination and APPROVE General Plan Amendment 09-01. BACKGROUND On April 14, 2009, the City Council appointed a Subcommittee consisting of Mayor Margaret Clark, Council Member Polly Low, and staff to discuss the future of mixed-use development EXHIBIT B Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Page 2 of 7 in the City of Rosemead. The Subcommittee was to analyze the current 2008 General Plan and make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council as to whether the Land Use Element should be amended. Between May and September of 2009, the Subcommittee analyzed the current land use policy regarding mixed-use development. In addition, Hogle-Ireland, a professional land use planning firm, was consulted for technical analysis. The analysis and studies included completing property surveys to document current land usage where mixed-use is proposed and evaluating the realistic potential of achieving lower mixed-use densities with stringent mixed-use development standards. In summary, the careful comprehensive assessment and study of several land use scenarios guided the Subcommittee to a determination of an appropriate framework for mixed-use development in the City. On September 22, 2009, a joint Planning Commission' and City Council meeting was held to review the Subcommittee's recommendation. At that meeting, staff received direction to embark on a comprehensive General Plan Work Revision Program. This program included, amending the General Plan to designate four key areas (nodes) in the City for mixed-use development with limitations on both residential density and building height, preparing mixed-use development standards, and processing a comprehensive Zoning Map update. Staff has been making progress on completing the General Plan Work Revision Program. However, the recent sale of two large properties in the City, the "Auto Auction" and "Barr Lumber" sites (8001 Garvey Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, and 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue), prompted staff to reorganize the General Plan Work Revision Program. The "Barr Lumber" and "Auto Auction" sites total approximately 19 acres of land and have the potential of providing opportunity for a variety of tax generating commercial uses. For this reason, the General Plan Amendment now also proposes the incorporation of a specific plan land use designation on these properties. The specific plan land use designation will function as land use tool to control development on these sites with the objective of augmenting the City's economic base. ANALYSIS The following section will cover all the aspects of the General Plan Amendment in greater detail. Land Use Element As mentioned earlier in this report, General Plan Amendment 09-01 proposes,to amend the Land Use Element to designate four key areas (nodes) in the City for mixed-use development with limitations on both residential density and building height, as well as create a new commercial Specific Plan land use designation over two important commercial areas of the City. Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Page 3 of 7 The following is a description of the proposed mixed-use nodes. Exhibit A illustrates their locations. Mixed-Use Area One would include a portion of the City's downtown, consisting of several parcels on the north and south side of Valley Boulevard, between Muscatel Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard. Several parcels on the south side of Bentel Avenue, near Ivar Avenue, would also be included in this area. This district would limit development to 25730 residential units per acre and building height to three stories. Mixed-Use Area Two would be located at the northeast end of the City, at the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Temple City Boulevard, and would include all parcels on north side of Valley Boulevard to Abilene Street. This district would limit development to 40-60 residential units per acre and building height to four stories. Mixed-Use Area Three would be located along the north and south side Garvey Avenue between Charlotte Avenue and Willard Avenue. This district would limit development to 25- 30 residential units per acre and building height to three stories. . Mixed-Use Area Four would be located on the east end of Garvey Avenue, and include parcels between Stingle Avenue and the Rio Hondo River. This district would limit development to 40-60 residential units per acre and building height to four stories. Specific Plan/Commercial Land Use Designation General Plan Amendment 09-01 further proposes to create a new commercial Specific Plan land use designation over two important commercial areas of the City, the "Auto Auction" and "Barr Lumber" sites (8001 Garvey Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, and 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue). The Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Map(s) (Exhibit D) have been attached to further identify the location of the subject properties. A specific plan is an instrument for guiding, coordinating and regulating the development of property within a defined area. It is a special set of development standards, guidelines, and implementation procedures applicable to a particular geographical area within the City. The Rosemead Specific Plan/Commercial land use designation provides up to 269,000 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant-related uses and consists of approximately 19,2 acres within the following two project areas: Project Area 1 "Auto Auction Site": This area consists of 11 parcels of land totaling approximately 15.8 acres, located on the north side Garvey Avenue between Del Mar Avenue and San Gabriel Avenue. This site is bounded by Garvey Avenue to the south, Strathmore Avenue to the west, single-family residential land uses to the north, and Paradise Trailer Park and Apartments to the east. Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Page 4 of 7 Project Area 2 "Barr Lumber Site": This area is located on the southeast corner of Valley Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue, includes three parcels totaling approximately 3.4 acres. Rubio Wash is located just south of site and a combination of commercial and single-family residential land uses are located to the east. It is envisioned that the Specific Plan/Commercial designation will assist in the renovation, recycling, and redevelopment of these two areas. The goal of this designation is to promote redevelopment of these sites into cohesively planned sub-regional commercial centers that provide goods and services in a larger retail form with ancillary smaller retail uses supporting the sub-regional commercial uses. To accomplish this, the land use designation will require minimum site areas, as well as specify the permitted land uses and building sizes for each of the project areas. These requirements are defined in the draft General Plan (Exhibit B) on pages 12-15. Change in Land Use Designation of Existing Mixed-Use Areas The majority of all existing portions of the City that are currently designated for mixed-use development would change to their prior General Plan designation as stated in the 1987 General Plan. The reduction of land area designated for mixed-use development to four smaller areas and the creation of a Specific Plan/Commercial land use designation will affect the land use categories within the City the following way: • Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial land will decrease by 212 acres • Low Density Residential land will increase by 10 acres • Medium Density Residential land will increase by 15 acres • High Density Residential land will increase by 19 acres • Commercial designated land will increase by 181 acres • Mixed-Use Industrial/Commercial land will increase by 52 acres • Public Facilities land will decrease by 4 acres The following table provides a comparison between the existing General Plan and the proposed alternative with respect to estimated population and number of dwelling units at the year 2025. Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Page 5 of 7 t.S J [ .S~r V/.v~ ^'S 93 k SS f" n'u .l Jn(, ..Y ~rT Zt ii 1 {~...il'} 1 t 2008 G t l C d ' d t ween enera ron omparisons Be anuan Deuetopment an Poputa ,QM P ~i ~ ^2^i x'W y'. 1L'a~4 ~ 'i .A'QY Z ~J~l iT' i • 4 t 1~: 'F'J'V i i~f l.`x i 14 - ( r . ] n Dwelling Units Population 2008 General Plan Land Use Policy 20,783 80,386 General Plan Amendment 09-01 Land Use Policy 15,938 61,531 Only minor changes are proposed to the existing land use designations' goals and policies defined in the General Plan, with the exception of the Commercial designation. To attract signature, tax generating hotels, the Commercial land use designation will be modified to allow such uses to develop up to maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if their projects include higher design standards. If hotel projects do not meet the amenities outlined in the General Plan, such projects will only be allotted a 0.35:1 FAR. Circulation, Resource Management, and Public Safety Elements General Plan Amendment 09-01 also proposes to amend the Circulation, Resource Management, and Public Safety Elements to address the proposed land use changes and to comply with Assembly Bill 162. Circulation Element General Plan Amendment 09-01 proposes to amend the Circulation Element to address the proposed land use changes. The Circulation Element addresses issues related to vehicular circulation, parking management, public transit, walking, biking, and trails. In order to adequately update the Circulation Element a traffic study (Exhibit E) was completed by KOA Corporation on February 19, 2010. This study documents the methods and results of the analysis of existing and future circulation conditions in the City of Rosemead, assesses the potential impacts of growth under the Circulation Element update, and provides recommendations regarding improvements that may be needed to accommodate the anticipated growth levels. Based on these recommendations, the Circulation Element was amended to refine the goals, policies, and actions to address anticipated mobility needs, and the ability of the roadway network and the various transportation modes to meet future travel demands through the buildout year of the Land Use Element (2025). General Plan Modifications to Comply with Assembly Bill 162 General Plan Amendment 09-01 also proposes to amend the Land Use, Resource Management, and Public Safety Elements to comply with Assembly Bill 162 (AB 162). AB 162 requires that the City identify and annually review the areas covered by the General Plan that are subject to flooding as identified by floodplain mapping by either the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources (DWR). Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Page 6 of 7 This is accomplished by reference to the Public Safety Element, where flooding is discussed in further detail. Conclusion The programs, goals, and policies identified in this General Plan Amendment will promote stronger and enhanced commercial business districts, as well as stimulate and revitalize commercial corridors with both needed housing and commercial retail services. If General Plan Amendment 09-01 is adopted by the City Council, the municipal code amendments for mixed-use development standards and specific plan implementation criteria, mixed- use guidelines, and zoning map revisions will be brought to the Planning Commission for review in early spring. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS According Section 15164 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act, the lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The conditions detailed in Section 15162 relate to substantial changes in the project, which would require major revisions to the previous EIR. The Rosemead City Council adopted General Plan update and certified an accompanying Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) on October 14, 2008. The certified Program EIR provided a program-level assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from development pursuant to land use policy and implementation of the goals and policies set forth in all chapters of the updated General Plan, as well as long-term implementation of the General Plan through a revised Zoning Code. Upon the Commission's review of General Plan Amendment 09-01, an Addendum EIR will be proposed based on the 2008 Program EIR. It is anticipated that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed General Plan amendment would be less than those associated with the 2008 General Plan. Should the Commission require staff to make changes to the amendment proposed in this report, then an Addendum EIR may not be appropriate and further review may be required. Planning Commission Meetlng March 1, 2010 Page 7 of 7 STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS Section 65300 et seq of the California Government Code sets standards for each city to prepare, adopt, and amend a comprehensive general plan. This plan coordinates the long- term physical development goals and objectives of the City. Government Code Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 66474 require that day-to-day development decisions, such as zoning and land subdivisions should be consistent with the General Plan. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091, this public hearing notice has been mailed to all real property owners subject to General Plan Amendment 09-01. In addition, this notice has been published in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the local agency, as the number of owners of real property within 300 feet of the project site is greater than 1,000. Lastly, this notice is also posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing. Prepared by: Sheri Bermejo Principal Planner Exhibits ubmitted by: %%opg Community Development Director A. Land Use Map B. Draft General Plan C. Resolution No. 10-03 D. Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Maps E. Traffic Analysis, prepared by KOA Corporation, February 19, 2010 PC RESOLUTION 10-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING PLANNING DIVISION STAFF TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM TO THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PROGRAM EIR) WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 14, 2008, PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15164 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09-01. WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead ("City") embarked on a comprehensive amendment of its General Plan in 2009 to address the appropriate location for mixed-use development and to create a High Intensity Commercial land use designation to assist in the renovation, recycling, and redevelopment of two areas along commercial corridors in the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091, public hearing notices were mailed to all real property owners whose properties are directly and specifically affected by General Plan Amendment 09-01. In addition, a notice was been published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on February 19, 2010, as the number of owners of real property within 300 feet of the project site was greater 1,000. Lastly, this notice is also posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to General Plan Amendment 09-01; and. . WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES, AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission finds that General Plan Amendment 09-01, as proposed, is consistent with the requirements of state law governing general plans, including but not limited to Government Code Section 65300 and following. EXHIBIT C SECTION 2. Based on the entire administrative record before the Planning Commission on the Project, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City of Rosemead Planning Division prepare an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) which was certified by the City Council on October 14, 2008, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. SECTION 3. Based on the entire administrative record before the Planning Commission on the Project, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council consider the environmental determination and approve General Plan Amendment 09-01. SECTION 4. The Chair of the Commission shall sign this resolution and the Commission's Administrative Secretary shall attest to the adoption thereof. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on March 1, 2010, by the following vote: YES: ALARCON, ENG, HERRERA, HUNTER AND RUIZ NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SECTION 6. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 1ST day o Mar h, 2010. Diana Herrera, Chairwoman CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at a special meeting, held on the 1 sc day of March, 2010 by the following vote: YES: ALARCON NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ENG, HERRERA, HUNTER AND RUIZ Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Herrera at 7:00 p.m., at the Rosemead Community Recreation Center, 3936 N. Muscatel Avenue, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Eng INVOCATION - Vice-Chairman Alarcon ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT - Commissioners Eng, Hunter, Ruiz, Vice-Chairman Alarcon, and Chairwoman Herrera. OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Greg Murphy, Community Development Director Wong, Principal Planner Bermejo, Senior Planner Garry, Assistant Planner Trinh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3, CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes January 19, 2010 Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chairman Alarcon to approve the minutes of January 19, 2010 as presented. Vote Resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09.03 -AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES - The City of Rosemead is proposing to amend Chapter 17.12 of the Rosemead Municipal Code relating to the amortization of nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses in the City. The proposed ordinance requires that all poultry slaughter businesses within the City of Rosemead cease operating within three years of adoption of the ordinance. This item was initially presented to the Planning Commission on November 16, 2009. At that meeting, staff requested that the Planning Commission continue the item to December 7, 2009 to allow for further analysis of the issue. At the December 7, 2009 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the item and adopted EXHIBIT D Resolution No. 09-23 with an amendment that all poultry slaughter businesses cease operating as of December 31, 2010, a period of time which would now be less than one year. The City Council conducted a public hearing on the item on January 26, 2010. At that time it was discovered that the San Gabriel Tribune had not published the required public hearing notice for the Planning Commission hearing that began on November 16, 2009. Since the City Council cannot act on the Municipal Code Amendment until a properly noticed Planning Commission hearing has occurred, the City Council opened the public hearing, took public testimony on the proposed ordinance, and then closed the public hearing without taking any further action until the item could be rescheduled and re-noticed for a new Planning Commission public hearing. PC RESOLUTION 10.05 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-03 AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider Resolution No. 10-05, a resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Ordinance No. 883, modifying the zoning code with respect to the amortization of poultry slaughter businesses. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission consider adding extension language in Section 4 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-05 and Section 2 of draft Ordinance No. 883. Finally staff recommends that Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-05 in its present form or as amended with extension language included and recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts. Senior Planner Garry presented the staff report. Chairwoman Herrera asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked staff what land uses are permitted on this site under the current zoning Senior Planner Garry stated that site is zoned M-1 and light industrial uses are permitted. He then referred the question to Principal Planner Bermejo. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that all uses permitted under the C-3 (Commercial) zone are allowed in the M-1 zone, and that examples of industrial uses include uses such as storage facilities, caning facilities, and auto repair shops. Commissioner Hunter read the background section on page 2 of staff report and requested staff to explain why this business has continued to operate for 18-20 years. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that poultry slaughtering was originally a permitted use in the M-1 zone and the approval of such use could be made over the counter. She also stated that council approved ordinance No. 683 on May 14, 1991, to eliminate the poultry and rabbit slaughter use from the M-1 zoning regulations. Therefore, the-use is legal non-conforming today. Commissioner Eng questioned staff what zoning classification is used in cities that permit poultry slaughtering. Community Development Director Stan Wong stated that such use is generally permitted in a heavy industrial zoning classification, and such uses are usually located in a rural area because this type of use requires a lot of land. Chairwoman Herrera opened the public hearing Brian Lewin addressed the Planning Commission and stated that they have been given a rare opportunity to reconsider this item and he hopes that they will do so. Fred Herrera stated that this decision will be a difficult one and that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to represent the residents that live there. He also stated that the business has grown enough to be intrusive with the odors, discharge, and it has a negative impact on the community. He strongly recommends that the Planning Commission approve this ordinance to eliminate the poultry business from this city. Jean Hall stated that Cal Poultry does not deserve any favors. She also stated that slaughtering is an undesirable for those who have lived so close and have endured the odors for all this time. She also stated that Cal Poultry has recently stated that they did not know the community was unhappy with the odors, chicken blood, and the rest of the unpleasant procedures. This has been discussed at many Council meetings in previous years, and the mere fact that this complicated issue has been bounced back and forth'from the Planning Commission and City Council shows that this is not an easy problem to resolve. She also stated that City Council officials are elected and the Planning Commission is appointed by City Council and now is the time to make the right recommendations. She also stated lets not prolong the agony anymore and be direct and to the point. She said lets set deadlines or give Cal Poultry the option of doing their slaughtering at the Azusa site and transporting the chickens to the Rosemead site to sell or help the business relocate to another site that is not near residences. Phyllis Tury stated that in the last 4 years nothing has been done. She also stated that the odors have gotten worst and she cannot even enjoy her yard on Sundays. She states that she does have legitimate complaints and she appreciates the religion that you need fresh slaughtered chickens, but not in her neighborhood. She also displayed two pictures taken in December of 2009 of dead chickens in cages that had been there for two days and stated that chicken blood is being washed into the streets and does not want this in her neighborhood. She also stated that the cages with dead chickens were visible to children walking by. They have outgrown this facility and Cal Poultry's parking lot looks like a loading dock. She also states she does not mind them selling the chickens, as long as the slaughtering is elsewhere. She also states that chickens carry bacteria and the City could be fined. Adolfo Ponce stated this is deja all over again. He has presented this item to the previous Planning Commission and now this one, we have gone through 1 Y2 Administrations with this issue. He also stated that this facility has outgrown itself. He also stated that other State and County agencies had been contacted for various violations. He stated that Cal Poultry has been told they cannot wash blood down the sewer lines by the Water Quality Agency and they still continue to do it. He stated that Cal Poultry does not have any regard for City ordinances, and he hopes the Planning Commission will make a fair recommendation. William Su stated that he respects the residents concerns with the owner, and he appreciates the displays and opinions of respecting religion. He also stated that this business has been allowed to operate for 20 years and feels that they should be allowed to continue to operate and make the improvements to the facility. He also stated that other cities no longer allow licensing for this type of business now, so where will this business go and how will they survive. He also requested that the city please work with business to allow them to provide this service to the community. Colin Lennard, the attorney representing Cal Poultry, stated that he would like to make the same recommendation that he made to the City Council. He said that there is only one issue, and that is odors, and no one has allowed his client to correct the odor problem. He also stated we have offered to install the appropriate equipment, at whatever the cost and what is recommended by an consultant, that we will find and pay for,, that is approved by the city, to the community and the City. He also stated we will agree to implement whatever those recommendations are and the City turned us down, as recently as one month ago. He also stated we firmly believe you don't deny a successful sales tax generating business in this City, you don't deny them the opportunity to correct the one issue that so far has gotten the attention of all the surrounding neighborhood. He also stated the he has driven around the manufacturing zone and if that is a striving residential neighborhood then he has never seen one like that before and it is a light manufacturing zone and what this city should do is let this Planning Commission let Cal Poultry have the opportunity to correct this odor issue. He also stated if they are not corrected then the City has the same opportunity available to them as you have tonight. He stated don't cut them off before they have the opportunity to do that. He stated there have been statements of previous violations in staff reports and we are talking about minor violations that have been corrected and there are no other issues outstanding. He also stated these violations occurred in 2003 and 2006 that was 4-7 years ago and another violation (that was not audible), there are no existing violations. All the existing violations have been corrected (the business license, signage issues, the so called opening between 8932 and 8942 Garvey) and the only outstanding violation is the odor issue. He also stated they deserve a chance to address that issue. He closed by stating that let his client have the opportunity to correct this situation. He also stated that documenting an ordinance and whatever you recommend to the City Council is not going to mitigate the odor situation, and if you think any successful business man is going to start investing capitol when they know they are going to be put out of business in one - three years is not going to happen. He also stated, so the main issue surrounding Cal Poultry will not be going away, and the ordinance will not do anybody any goad, especially the people that are proposing it, and again suggested that that it makes logical sense to let them mitigate the odors and if they can't mitigate the odors, then consider adopting the ordinance. He thanked the Planning Commission. Rick Loya stated that he would like to speak on the item for zone change of the eight parks. Chairwoman Herrera stated this item is later in Agenda. Barbara Murphy stated in the late 80's the Planning Commission and City Council approved to change the number of square footage to have more than one unit on residential property and discussed how hundreds of residents of multiple units showed up at the Council Meeting protesting the change. She also stated that at that time the City Council explained that they are now legal non-conforming and don't worry you will be grandfathered in. She stated that she researched the meaning of'grandfathered" and said that she interpreted it to mean forever. She also stated she is concerned that if businesses can be closed for being legal non-conforming, what is to stop City Council or the Planning Commission from telling homeowners of multiple units the same thing. Chairwoman Herrera closed public hearing. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that there are some good issues that have come up and he would like to say that odors are an on-going problem. He also stated that California has always been the State on the forefront; we were the first to pass the smoking laws, smog control. He also stated the plan is to beautify Garvey Avenue and we don't want to see businesses there that are not right for the City. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the issues that have been brought up tonight are about land use and he requested his colleagues to concentrate on that. He also stated that beautification has been brought up and that the City needs change and land use is important. He also stated we need to stay focused, but we also need to let the property owner have time to do what they need to do, but we need to allow the City to move forward too. Commissioner Eng stated that she agrees with Commissioner Ruiz. She stated that this is a land use issue, and it is not the appropriate land use for this site, but the decision to approve this business was 20 years ago. She also stated that this business had a right to be here and has worked hard to build a customer base. She said that in 1991 the City put a stop to it, but the City should have monitored the site better. She also stated that we have heard concerns from some members of the community, but we also need to be a better neighbor and work with the businesses so they can to address the concerns. She also stated that three years is not enough, as they have invested in the City and they will need the time for a smooth transition to a more appropriate location. 4 Commissioner Hunter stated that she would like to make three recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider. She said her first suggestion is to let Cal Poultry stay in the same location and have the chickens slaughtered at another location and have them brought in daily for freshness and not have chickens on the premises. She said her second recommendation is a one year amortization with a 180 day extension. She also stated her third recommendation is two years with no extensions. Commissioner Ruiz stated he agrees with Commissioner Eng. He said we should give Cal Poultry the three years and at the end of three years, verify if they still need more time to relocate. Commissioner Ruiz made a motion and the motion was clarified by City Attorney Murphy as follows; Commissioner Ruiz motioned that Cal Poultry be given three years and adopt the resolution with staffs recommended extension language as in section D of the staff report. Vice-Chairman Alarcon asked Commissioner Ruiz to repeat the motion. He stated that the amortization period needs to be a fixed period of time, such as 18 month or two years. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the motion was for three years. City Attorney Murphy clarified that Commissioner Ruiz would like the request that the amortization ordinance include an extension option by applicant to reviewed by the Planning Commission instead of City Council. (This portion not audible) Chairwoman Herrera asked City Attorney Murphy what the benefit would be to the City. City Attorney Murphy stated that staff would have to present the extension application to the City Council, but if it goes to the Planning Commission, the applicant has the right to appeal to appeal it to the City Council. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated he was confused on what the motion is. Chairwoman Herrera stated that Commissioner Ruiz is making a motion for three years and applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval of the extension. Commissioner Ruiz stated his motion is for three years, with the Planning Commission approving the extension instead of City Council, and with the extension not having a set date. City Attorney Murphy stated that Commissioner Ruiz's pending motion is to adopt the Resolution as recommended with the extension language, but that the review of the extension would go to the Planning Commission for first. . Commissioner Hunter questioned Chairwoman Herrera what exactly is the motion. Chairwoman Herrera stated what the motion was but was not audible. City Attorney Murphy stated the recommendation is the three year amortization period and the inclusion of the opportunity to come back for a potential extension, and that extension would be stated as it says in the staff report of Section D and read numbers 1 through 8. He also stated that the extension request would have to be presented to the Planning Commission for review. (the last sentence not audible). Chairwoman Herrera asked why staff that would approve the extension. City Attorney Murphy stated staff would review and make recommendations to the Commission, but that ultimately it would be approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ruiz made the motion, seconded by Chairwoman Herrera, to recommend the three year amortization period and to adopt the Resolution as recommended with the language in the staff report be instead of going directly to City Council that the applicant goes to the Planning Commission first for approval of extension. Vote Results were: Yes: Herrera, Ruiz No: Alarcon, Eng, Hunter Abstain: None Absent: None Chairwoman Herrera stated the motion was not passed and asked Commissioners for a new motion. Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunter for a fixed 2 year amortization period with no extension. Vote Results were: Yes: Alarcon, Hunter No: Eng, Herrera, Ruiz Abstain: None Absent: None Chairwoman Herrera stated the motion was not passed and asked Commissioners for a new motion. Commissioner Eng made a motion recommending that the City work with Cal Poultry to determine an amortization period acceptable to both the City and the business that would provide a reasonable timeframe for the business to relocate to a more appropriate location so that the business can continue to serve their customers. City Attorney Murphy stated that this was not a proper motion and explained why. (Not Audible) Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz to recommend three years with no extension and to adopt the Resolution as recommended. Vote Resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Herrera, Ruiz No: Eng Abstain: Hunter Absent: None GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09.01 - The City of Rosemead proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to designate four key areas (nodes) in the City for mixed-use development with limitations on both residential density and building height. The current General Plan allows for mixed-use development along all major commercial corridors in the City. General Plan Amendment 09-01 also proposes the creation of a new commercial Specific Plan land use designation over two commercial areas of the City. The Specific Plan land use designation would affect the following properties: 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, 7867, 7907, 7913, 7919, 7931, 7951, and 8001 Garvey Avenue, 3011 and 3033 Denton Avenue, and 7938 Virginia Street. Lastly, General Plan Amendment 09-01 also includes amending the Circulation Element, the Resource Management Element, and the Public Safety Element to address the proposed land use changes and to comply with Assembly Bill 162 (AB 162) PC RESOLUTION 10.03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING PLANNING DIVISION STAFF TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM TO THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PROGRAM EIR) WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 14, 2008, PURSUANT 'TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15164 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09-01. Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-03 (Exhibit C), a resolution directing staff to prepare an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) which was certified by the City Council on October 14, 2008, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission RECOMMEND that the City Council consider the environmental determination and APPROVE General Plan Amendment 09- 01. Principal Planner Bermejo presented the staff report and gave a power point presentation. She also stated Lisa Brownfield, Land Use Consultant from Hogle-Ireland, and the Traffic Consultant from KOA are present to answer any questions. Lisa Brownfield, Land Use Consultant presented the Circulation Element Principal Planner Bermejo stated that she received two letters from property owners in the mail and provided an overview of each letter. She stated one is from the owner of the Auto Auction site, requesting that this item be postponed due to the fact they are out of the country. She stated that because this item will be going to the City Council for approval, the property owner will have the opportunity to discuss their issues at the Council meeting. She also stated the second letter was from property owners MrA Mrs. Ann Lieu of 7951 Garvey, who were concerned about the 'new Specific Plan land use designation on their property. Principal Planner Bermejo presented staff recommendations to Planning Commission, which included revising the draft specific plan land use designation to a High Intensity Commercial land use designation, and omitting the property located at 7951 Garvey Avenue from that designation. City Attorney Murphy clarified staffs recommendation to Planning Commission. Chairwoman Herrera asked Commissioners if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked staff to elaborate on how the new designations for mix-use were selected. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the Subcommittee looked at different scenarios, lot size, density, entrance to the city, and provided and overview of reasons why the node development pattern was better than the corridor land use pattern. Lisa Brownfield stated we not only looked at surrounding uses but where public services where and explained the benefits of having mixed use where public services are located. Commissioner Eng asked if the four-story height limitation included the first floor being commercial use Lisa Brownfield replied yes, the maximum will be four stories with the first one being commercial use. 7 Commissioner Eng asked what the maximum height of the four-story limitation would be Principal Planner Bermejo stated there will be a numerical height limit proposed in the development standards which are currently being drafted. Commissioner Eng stated that was her next question; do we have development standards on height requirements. Chairwoman Herrera asked if Mayor Margaret Clark and Councilwoman Polly Low were on the Subcommittee who submitted these recommendations. Principal Planner replied yes that is correct. Chairwoman Herrera opened the public hearing. Josephine Yang stated she is speaking for the property owners, being affected by the mixed-use land use designation change, who are out of the country at the moment. She expressed her concern that the property owner will suffer a substantial financial loss if this is approved. She also stated that this is a new Planning Commission and the Planning Commission that approved the General Plan in 2007 is not present to answer any questions. She also stated that the City needs to have some compassion for the present business owners. Warren Lieu stated that he is speaking in behalf of his parents. He stated that the amendment will financially affect his family's income and property. Lisa Brownfield stated Principal Planner Bermejo recommended that their property (7951 Garvey) not be included in the High Intensity Commercial land use designation, and asked it that would be acceptable to him. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that is correct is will stay as is. Warren Lieu stated he feels that is alright but needs to talk to his parents. Simon Lee stated that he would like to request that the mixed-use designation be included on the properties at Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue, and on the Auto Auction site. Robert Stacket, stated he owns a piece of property next to the auto auction which is a mobile home park. He also stated he is concerned how this General Plan Amendment will affect this parcel. He also stated that seniors occupy this mobile home park, and that they will have no where to go. Principal Planner Bermejo stated tonight's General Plan Amendment is to keep that parcel designation commercial as it was in the 80's. She clarified that it will not be included in the High Intensity Commercial designation. Brian Lewin stated that he understands from staffs comments that the ultimate goal is to build the nodes and to spread out from those nodes to fill in the corridors. He asked staff if is understanding is correct. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that this General Plan, which is a twenty year vision, only included the development in the four node areas and not the corridors. Brian Lewin asked what the longer term goal is proposed to be. Principal Planner Bermejo stated in future, 15 to 20 years from now, the future of mixed use could be readdressed Lisa Brownfield also stated that would be twenty years from now Brian Lewin stated he would like to request that filling in the corridors be mentioned in the General Plan because he has concerns that future developers and retailers may be concerned with projects becoming legal-nonconforming. His second concern is that we may reach the population of 61,000 by the year of 2015. He would also like to request that the language of Policy 1.7 on page 2-20 of the General Plan be re-instated because he feels it is important to stay there. Chairwoman Herrera asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. None Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to ADOPT Resolution No. 10.03 (Exhibit C), a resolution directing staff to prepare an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) which was certified by the City Council on October 14, 2008, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and RECOMMEND that the City Council consider the environmental determination and APPROVE General Plan Amendment 09.01. Vote Resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Wong confirmed the vote and stated that this item will be presented at the City Council Meeting of April 13, 2010. He also stated this is a tentative date. C. ZONE CHANGE 10.01 - The City of Rosemead proposes to change the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the 0-S (Open Space) zoning designation. The proposed zone change will bring the zoning designation of these packs into consistency with the City's existing General Plan goals and policies, as required by State law. The following parks will be affected by this zone change: Angelus Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5283-032-903), Garvey Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, and 5287-020.904), Guess Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5389-004-800), Klingennan Park (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5282022-270 and 5282-022-271), Rosemead Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 8592-018-902), Sally Tanner Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5389-001-903), Triangle Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5281-032-900), and Zapopan Park (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5288-005-800, 5288-005-801, 5288-005- 802, 5288-005-804, 5288-005-805, and 5288-005-806). PC RESOLUTION 10.04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 10-01 AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 887, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF EIGHT (8) CITY PARKS TO THE 0-S (OPEN SPACE) ZONING DESIGNATION. THE FOLLOWING PARKS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ZONE CHANGE: ANGELUS PARK (APN: 5283-032-903), GARVEY PARK (APNs: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, and 5287-020-904), GUESS PARK (APN: 5389-004-800), KLINGERMAN PARK (APNs: 5282022-270 and 5282-022-271), ROSEMEAD PARK (APN: 8592-018-902), SALLY TANNER PARK (APN: 5389-001-903), TRIANGLE PARK (APN: 5281-032-900), and ZAPOPAN PARK (APNs' 5288-005-800, 5288-005-801, 5288-005-802, 5288-005-804,5288-005-805, and 5288-005-806). RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10- 04, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 887, changing the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the 0-S (Open Space) zoning designation. Assistant Planner Tdnh presented the staff report. Chairwoman Herrera asked the Commissioners if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if this was strictly a housekeeping matter. Staff replied this is correct. Commissioner Ruiz asked if the open space zone allow the City to request federal grants. Staff replied yes it will. Chairwoman Herrera opened public hearing. Rick Loya stated that he has been a resident of Rosemead for fifty years. He also stated that he does not understand exactly what a zone change means. He asked for clarification of exactly what will be happening to the City parks. He also gave a brief history of when the parks were built, and he expressed how important the parks are to the community. He said please save our parks. Commissioner Ruiz stated he understands his concerns, and that this will allow the City to get federal funding to improve our parks. He also stated we will continue to provide recreation for our community. Commissioner Eng questioned if we are making changes to the park or if we are just reclassifying the zone to be able to get federal funding. Principal Planner Bermejo replied it is strictly reclassifying the land as open space. Todd (last name not audible), resident of Rosemead, expressed concern with the zone change and stated that he and his wife use the park for exercising. He said he wanted to make sure that this change will not affect them using the park. Nancy Eng stated we are not selling the park. We are just reclassifying it to apply for grants to improve the park. Chairwoman Herrera closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded my Commissioner Hunter to ADOPT Resolution No. 10-04, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 887, changing the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the O-S (Open Space) zoning designation. Vote Resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 10 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRWOMAN & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng stated she attended a Gold Line Metro Meeting last Saturday with Traffic Commissioner Brian Lewin and told the Planning Commission it was regarding the initial review of environmental impacts of the project. Chairwoman Herrera stated she had attended a Gold Line Metro Meeting also. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER 8 STAFF Parking Concern at 3365 Walnut Grove Avenue Principal Planner Bermejo stated she wanted to give update on the parking concern at 3365 Walnut Grove Avenue. She said that Lt. Tim Murakami (Chief of Police) and Ray Rodriquez (Public Safety Supervisor) have been monitoring the location. She reported that at this time they have not seen any parking violations. She also stated Code Enforcement is still monitoring this site. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 15, 2010. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. A ,IEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary a Diana Herrera Chairwoman 11 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: MARCH 1, 2010 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09-01 SUMMARY The City of Rosemead proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to designate four key areas (nodes) in the City for mixed-use development with limitations on both residential density and building height. The current General Plan allows for mixed-use development along all major commercial corridors in the City. General Plan Amendment 09-01 also proposes the creation of a new commercial Specific Plan land use designation over two commercial areas of the City. The Specific Plan land use designation would affect the following properties: 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, 7867, 7907, 7913, 7919, 7931, 7951, and 8001 Garvey Avenue, 3011 and 3033 Denton Avenue, and 7938 Virginia Street. Lastly, General Plan Amendment 09-01 also includes amending the Circulation Element, the Resource Management Element, and the Public Safety Element to address the proposed land use changes and to comply with Assembly Bill 162 (AB 162). Attached is a map (Exhibit A), which highlights the properties that will be affected by this General Plan Amendment. The Draft General Plan document has been attached as Exhibit B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-03 (Exhibit C),. a resolution directing staff to prepare an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) which was certified by the City Council on October 14, 2008, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission RECOMMEND that the City Council consider the environmental determination and APPROVE General Plan Amendment 09-01. BACKGROUND On April 14, 2009, the City Council appointed a Subcommittee consisting of Mayor Margaret Clark, Council Member Polly Low, and staff to discuss the future of mixed-use development EXHIBIT B Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Page 2 of 7 in the City of Rosemead. The Subcommittee was to analyze the current 2008 General Plan and make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council as to whether the Land Use Element should be amended. Between May and September of 2009, the Subcommittee analyzed the current land use policy regarding mixed-use development. In addition, Hogle-Ireland, a professional land use planning firm, was consulted for technical analysis. The analysis and studies included completing property surveys to document current land usage where mixed-use is proposed and evaluating the realistic potential of achieving lower mixed-use densities with stringent mixed-use development standards. In summary, the careful comprehensive assessment and study of several land use scenarios guided the Subcommittee to a determination of an appropriate framework for mixed-use development in the City. On September 22, 2009, a joint Planning Commission' and City Council meeting was held to review the Subcommittee's recommendation. At that meeting, staff received direction to embark on a comprehensive General Plan Work Revision Program. This program included, amending the General Plan to designate four key areas (nodes) in the City for mixed-use development with limitations on both residential density and building height, preparing mixed-use development standards, and processing a comprehensive Zoning Map update. Staff has been making progress on completing the General Plan Work Revision Program. However, the recent sale of two large properties in the City, the "Auto Auction" and "Barr Lumber" sites (8001 Garvey Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, and 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue), prompted staff to reorganize the General Plan Work Revision Program. The "Barr Lumber" and "Auto Auction" sites total approximately 19 acres of land and have the potential of providing opportunity for a variety of tax generating commercial uses. For this reason, the General Plan Amendment now also proposes the incorporation of a specific plan land use designation on these properties. The specific plan land use designation will function as land use tool to control development on these sites with the objective of augmenting the City's economic base. ANALYSIS The following section will cover all the aspects of the General Plan Amendment in greater detail. Land Use Element As mentioned earlier in this report, General Plan Amendment 09-01 proposes, to amend the Land Use Element to designate four key areas (nodes) in the City for mixed-use development with limitations on both residential density and building height, as well as create a new commercial Specific Plan land use designation over two important commercial areas of the City. Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Page 3 of 7 The following is a description of the proposed mixed-use nodes. Exhibit A illustrates their locations. Mixed-Use Area One would include a portion of the City's downtown, consisting of several parcels on the north and south side of Valley Boulevard, between Muscatel Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard. Several parcels on the south side of Bentel Avenue, near Ivar Avenue, would also be included in this area. This district would limit development to 25730 residential units per acre and building height to three stories. Mixed-Use Area Two would be located at the northeast end of the City, at the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Temple City Boulevard, and would include all parcels on north side of Valley Boulevard to Abilene Street. This district would limit development to 40-60 residential units per acre and building height to four stories. Mixed-Use Area Three would be located along the north and south side Garvey Avenue between Charlotte Avenue and Willard Avenue. This district would limit development to 25- 30 residential units per acre and building height to three stories. . Mixed-Use Area Four would be located on the east end of Garvey Avenue, and include parcels between Stingle Avenue and the Rio Hondo River. This district would limit development to 40-60 residential units per acre and building height to four stories. Specific Plan/Commercial Land Use Designation General Plan Amendment 09-01 further proposes to create a new commercial Specific Plan land use designation over two important commercial areas of the City, the "Auto Auction" and "Barr Lumber" sites (8001 Garvey Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, and 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue). The Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Map(s) (Exhibit D) have been attached to further identify the location of the subject properties. A specific plan is an instrument for guiding, coordinating and regulating the development of property within a defined area. It is a special set of development standards, guidelines, and implementation procedures applicable to a particular geographical area within the City. The Rosemead Specific Plan/Commercial land use designation provides up to 269,000 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant-related uses and consists of approximately 19.2 acres within the following two project areas: Project Area 1 "Auto Auction Site": This area consists of 11 parcels of land totaling approximately 15.8 acres, located on the north side Garvey Avenue between Del Mar Avenue and San Gabriel Avenue. This site is bounded by Garvey Avenue to the south, Strathmore Avenue to the west, single-family residential land uses to the north, and Paradise Trailer Park and Apartments to the east. Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Page 4 of 7 Project Area 2 "Barr Lumber Site": This area is located on the southeast corner of Valley Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue, includes three parcels totaling approximately 3.4 acres. Rubio Wash is located just south of site and a combination of commercial and single-family residential land uses are located to the east. It is envisioned that the Specific Plan/Commercial designation will assist in the renovation, recycling, and redevelopment of these two areas. The goal of this designation is to promote redevelopment of these sites into cohesively planned sub-regional commercial centers that provide goods and services in a larger retail form with ancillary smaller retail uses supporting the sub-regional commercial uses. To accomplish this, the land use designation will require minimum site areas, as well as specify the permitted land uses and building sizes for each of the project areas. These requirements are defined in the draft General Plan (Exhibit B) on pages 12-15. Change in Land Use Designation of Existing Mixed-Use Areas The majority of all existing portions of the City that are currently designated for mixed-use development would change to their prior General Plan designation as stated in the 1987 General Plan. The reduction of land area designated for mixed-use development to four smaller areas and the creation of a Specific Plan/Commercial land use designation will affect the land use categories within the City the following way: • Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial land will decrease by 212 acres • Low Density Residential land will increase by 10 acres • Medium Density Residential land will increase by 15 acres • High Density Residential land will increase by 19 acres • Commercial designated land will increase by 181 acres • Mixed-Use Industrial/Commercial land will increase by 52 acres • Public Facilities land will decrease by 4 acres The following table provides a comparison between the existing General Plan and the proposed alternative with respect to estimated population and number of dwelling units at the year 2025. Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Page 5 of 7 ` ' F Plan~ar~ii~ ~a~`aDevefopmeni: andSPoputatton Compansons~4etween 2008~Genera r~•u sK a ~ 1 ~ ' r't* # ' " `'d ' r` " e ' X i ~ ~ n i +.L 4» X ~ ~f FNr t C. S, ~ ~ y i'it at ~ ~ 7w ~ `4'~ d f VK' ' r F ~ + r 'K E . ^Gen~raf Plan Amendment 09 P1- ~ , ~ ~ s , Dwelling Units Population 2008 General Plan Land Use Policy 20,783 80,386 General Plan Amendment 09,01 Land Use Policy 15,938 61,531 Only minor changes are proposed to the existing land use designations' goals and policies defined in the General Plan, with the exception of the Commercial designation. To attract signature, tax generating hotels, the Commercial land use designation will be modified to allow such uses to develop up to maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if their projects include higher design standards. If hotel projects do not meet the amenities outlined in the General Plan, such projects will only be allotted a 0.35:1 FAR. Circulation, Resource Management, and Public Safety Elements General Plan Amendment 09-01 also proposes to amend the Circulation, Resource Management, and Public Safety Elements to address the proposed land use changes and to comply with Assembly Bill 162. Circulation Element General Plan Amendment 09-01 proposes to amend the Circulation Element to address the proposed land use changes. The Circulation Element addresses issues related to vehicular circulation, parking management, public transit, walking, biking, and trails. In order to adequately update the Circulation Element a traffic study (Exhibit E) was completed by KOA Corporation on February 19, 2010. This study documents the methods and results of the analysis of existing and future circulation conditions in the City of Rosemead, assesses the potential impacts of growth under the Circulation Element update, and provides recommendations regarding improvements that may be needed to accommodate the anticipated growth levels. Based on these recommendations, the Circulation Element was amended to refine the goals, policies, and actions to address anticipated mobility needs, and the ability of the roadway network and the various transportation modes to meet future travel demands through the buildout year of the Land Use Element (2025). General Plan Modifications to Comply with Assembly Bill 162 General Plan Amendment 09-01 also proposes to amend the Land Use, Resource Management, and Public Safety Elements to comply with Assembly Bill 162 (AB 162). AB 162 requires that the City identify and annually review the areas covered by the General Plan that are subject to flooding as identified by floodplain mapping by either the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources (DWR). Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Page 6 of 7 This is accomplished by reference to the Public Safety Element, where flooding is discussed in further detail. Conclusion The programs, goals, and policies identified in this General Plan Amendment will promote stronger and enhanced commercial business districts, as well as stimulate and revitalize commercial corridors with both needed housing and commercial retail services. If General Plan Amendment 09-01 is adopted by the City Council, the municipal code amendments for mixed-use development standards and specific plan implementation criteria, mixed- use guidelines, and zoning map revisions will be brought to the Planning Commission for review in early spring. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS According Section 15164 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act, the lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The conditions detailed in Section 15162 relate to substantial changes in the project, which would require major revisions to the previous EIR. The Rosemead City Council adopted General Plan update and certified an accompanying Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) on October 14, 2008. The certified Program EIR provided a program-level assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from development pursuant to land use policy and implementation of the goals and policies set forth in all chapters of the updated General Plan, as well as long-term implementation of the General Plan through a revised Zoning Code. Upon the Commission's review of General Plan Amendment 09-01, an Addendum EIR will be proposed based on the 2008 Program EIR. It is anticipated that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed General Plan amendment would be less than those associated with the 2008 General Plan. Should the Commission require staff to make changes to the amendment proposed in this report, then an Addendum EIR may not be appropriate and further review may be required. Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Page 7 of 7 STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS Section 65300 et seq of the California Government Code sets standards for each city to prepare, adopt, and amend a comprehensive general plan. This plan coordinates the long- term physical development goals and objectives of the City. Government Code Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 66474 require that day-to-day development decisions, such as zoning and land subdivisions should be consistent with the General Plan. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091, this public hearing notice has been mailed to all real property owners subject to General Plan Amendment 09-01. In addition, this notice has been published in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the local agency, as the number of owners of real property within 300 feet of the project site is greater than 1,000. Lastly, this notice is also posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing. Prepared by: Sheri Bermejo Principal Planner Exhibits ubmitted by: IL ag Community Development Director A. Land Use Map B. Draft General Plan C. Resolution No. 10-03 D. Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Maps E. Traffic Analysis, prepared by KOA Corporation, February 19, 2010 PC RESOLUTION 10-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING PLANNING DIVISION STAFF TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM TO THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PROGRAM EIR) WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 14, 2008, PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15164 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09-01. WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead ("City") embarked on a comprehensive amendment of its General Plan in 2009 to address the appropriate location for mixed-use development and to create a High Intensity Commercial land use designation to assist in the renovation, recycling, and redevelopment of two areas along commercial corridors in the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091, public hearing notices were mailed to all real property owners whose properties are directly and specifically affected by General Plan Amendment 09-01. In addition, a notice was been published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on February 19, 2010, as the number of owners of real property within 300 feet of the project site was greater 1,000. Lastly, this notice is also posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to General Plan Amendment 09-01; and. WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES, AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission finds that General Plan Amendment 09-01, as proposed, is consistent with the requirements of state law governing general plans, including but not limited to Government Code Section 65300 and following. EXHIBIT C SECTION 2. Based on the entire administrative record before the Planning Commission on the Project, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City of Rosemead Planning Division prepare an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) which was certified by the City Council on October 14, 2008, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. SECTION 3. Based on the entire administrative record before the Planning Commission on the Project, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council consider the environmental determination and approve General Plan Amendment 09-01. SECTION 4. The Chair of the Commission shall sign this resolution and the Commission's Administrative Secretary shall attest to the adoption thereof. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on March 1, 2010, by the following vote: YES: ALARCON, ENG, HERRERA, HUNTER AND RUIZ NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SECTION 6. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 1S day o Mar li, 2010. Diana Herrera, Chairwoman CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at a special meeting, held on the 1" day of March, 2010 by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN ALARCON, ENG, HERRERA, HUNTER AND RUIZ NONE NONE NONE Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Herrera at 7:00 p.m., at the Rosemead Community Recreation Center, 3936 N. Muscatel Avenue, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Eng INVOCATION - Vice-Chairman Alarcon ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT - Commissioners Eng, Hunter, Ruiz, Vice-Chairman Alarcon, and Chairwoman Herrera. OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Greg Murphy, Community Development Director Wong, Principal Planner Bermejo, Senior Planner Gary, Assistant Planner Trinh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes January 19, 2010 Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chairman Alarcon to approve the minutes of January 19, 2010 as presented. Vote Resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09.03 - AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES - The City of Rosemead is proposing to amend Chapter 17.12 of the Rosemead Municipal Code relating to the amortization of nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses in the City. The proposed ordinance requires that all poultry slaughter businesses within the City of Rosemead cease operating within three years of adoption of the ordinance. This item was initially presented to the Planning Commission on November 16, 2009. At that meeting, staff requested that the Planning Commission continue the item to December 7, 2009 to allow for further analysis of the issue. At the December 7, 2009 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the item and adopted EXHIBIT D Resolution No. 09-23 with an amendment that all poultry slaughter businesses cease operating as of December 31, 2010, a period of time which would now be less than one year. The City Council conducted a public hearing on the item on January 26, 2010. At that time it was discovered that the San Gabriel Tribune had not published the required public hearing notice for the Planning Commission hearing that began on November 16, 2009. Since the City Council cannot act on the Municipal Code Amendment until a properly noticed Planning Commission hearing has occurred, the City Council opened the public hearing, took public testimony on the proposed ordinance, and then closed the public hearing without taking any further action until the item could be rescheduled and re-noticed for a new Planning Commission public hearing. PC RESOLUTION 10.05 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-03 AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider Resolution No. 10-05, a resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Ordinance No. 883, modifying the zoning code with respect to the amortization of poultry slaughter businesses. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission consider adding extension language in Section 4 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-05 and Section 2 of draft Ordinance No. 883. Finally staff recommends that Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-05 in its present form or as amended with extension language included and recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts. Senior Planner Garry presented the staff report. Chairwoman Herrera asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked staff what land uses are permitted on this site under the current zoning Senior Planner Garry stated that site is zoned M-1 and light industrial uses are permitted. He then referred the question to Principal Planner Bermejo. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that all uses permitted under the C-3 (Commercial) zone are allowed in the M-1 zone, and that examples of industrial uses include uses such as storage facilities, caning facilities, and auto repair shops. Commissioner Hunter read the background section on page 2 of staff report and requested staff to explain why this business has continued to operate for 18-20 years. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that poultry slaughtering was originally a permitted use in the M-1 zone and the approval of such use could be made over the counter. She also stated that council approved ordinance No. 683 on May 14, 1991, to eliminate the poultry and rabbit slaughter use from the M-1 zoning regulations. Therefore, the.use is legal non-conforming today. Commissioner Eng questioned staff what zoning classification is used in cities that permit poultry slaughtering. Community Development Director Stan Wong stated that such use is generally permitted in a heavy industrial zoning classification, and such uses are usually located in a rural area because this type of use requires a lot of land. 2 Chairwoman Herrera opened the public hearing Brian Lewin addressed the Planning Commission and stated that they have been given a rare opportunity to reconsider this item and he hopes that they will do so. Fred Herrera stated that this decision will be a difficult one and that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to represent the residents that live there. He also stated that the business has grown enough to be intrusive with the odors, discharge, and it has a negative impact on the community. He strongly recommends that the Planning Commission approve this ordinance to eliminate the poultry business from this city. Jean Hall stated that Cal Poultry does not deserve any favors. She also stated that slaughtering is an undesirable for those who have lived so close and have endured the odors for all this time. She also stated that Cal Poultry has recently stated that they did not know the community was unhappy with the odors, chicken blood, and the rest of the unpleasant procedures. This has been discussed at many Council meetings in previous years, and the mere fact that this complicated issue has been bounced back and forth'from the Planning Commission and City Council shows that this is not an easy problem to resolve. She also stated that City Council officials are elected and the Planning Commission is appointed by City Council and now is the time to make the right recommendations. She also stated lets not prolong the agony anymore and be direct and to the point. She said lets set deadlines or give Cal Poultry the option of doing their slaughtering at the Azusa site and transporting the chickens to the Rosemead site to sell or help the business relocate to another site that is not near residences. Phyllis Tury stated that in the last 4 years nothing has been done. She also stated that the odors have gotten worst and she cannot even enjoy her yard on Sundays. She states that she does have legitimate complaints and she appreciates the religion that you need fresh slaughtered chickens, but not in her neighborhood. She also displayed two pictures taken in December of 2009 of dead chickens in cages that had been there for two days and stated that chicken blood is being washed into the streets and does not want this in her neighborhood. She also stated that the cages with dead chickens were visible to children walking by. They have outgrown this facility and Cal Poultry's parking lot looks like a loading dock. She also states she does not mind them selling the chickens, as long as the slaughtering is elsewhere. She also states that chickens carry bacter a and the City could be fined. Adolfo Ponce stated this is deja all over again. He has presented this item to the previous Planning Commission and now this one, we have gone through 1 Administrations with this issue. He also stated that this facility has outgrown itself. He also stated that other State and County agencies had been contacted for various violations. He stated that Cal Poultry has been told they cannot wash blood down the sewer lines by the Water Quality Agency and they still continue to do it. He stated that Cal Poultry does not have any regard for City ordinances, and he hopes the Planning Commission will make a fair recommendation. William Su stated that he respects the residents concerns with the owner, and he appreciates the displays and opinions of respecting religion. He also stated that this business has been allowed to operate for 20 years and feels that they should be allowed to continue to operate and make the improvements to the facility. He also stated that other cities no longer allow licensing for this type of business now, so where will this business go and how will they survive. He also requested that the city please work with business to allow them to provide this service to the community. Colin Lennard, the attorney representing Cal Poultry, stated that he would like to make the same recommendation that he made to the City Council. He said that there is only one issue, and that is odors, and no one has allowed his client to correct the odor problem. He also stated we have offered to install the appropriate equipment, at whatever the cost and what is recommended by an consultant, that we will find and pay for,, that is approved by the city, to the community and the City. He also stated we will agree to implement whatever those recommendations are and the City turned us down, as recently as one month ago. He also stated we firmly believe you don't deny a successful sales tax generating business in this City, you don't deny them the opportunity to correct the one issue that so far has gotten the attention of all the surrounding neighborhood. He also stated the he has driven around the manufacturing zone and if that is a striving residential neighborhood then he has never seen one like that before and it is a light manufacturing zone and what this city should do is let this Planning Commission let Cal Poultry have the opportunity to correct this odor issue. He also stated if they are not corrected then the City has the same opportunity available to them as you have tonight. He stated don't cut them off before they have the opportunity to do that. He stated there have been statements of previous violations in staff reports and we are talking about minor violations that have been corrected and there are no other issues outstanding. He also stated these violations occurred in 2003 and 2006 that was 4-7 years ago and another violation (that was not audible), there are no existing violations. All the existing violations have been corrected (the business license, signage issues, the so called opening between 8932 and 8942 Garvey) and the only outstanding violation is the odor issue. He also stated they deserve a chance to address that issue. He closed by stating that let his client have the opportunity to correct this situation. He also stated that documenting an ordinance and whatever you recommend to the City Council is not going to mitigate the odor situation, and if you think any successful business man is going to start investing capitol when they know they are going to be put out of business in one - three years is not going to happen. He also stated, so the main issue surrounding Cal Poultry will not be going away, and the ordinance will not do anybody any good, especially the people that are proposing it, and again suggested that that it makes logical sense to let them mitigate the odors and if they can't mitigate the odors, then consider adopting the ordinance. He thanked the Planning Commission. Rick Loya stated that he would like to speak on the item for zone change of the eight parks. Chairwoman Herrera stated this item is later in Agenda. Barbara Murphy stated in the late 80's the Planning Commission and City Council approved to change the number of square footage to have more than one unit on residential property and discussed how hundreds of residents of multiple units showed up at the Council Meeting protesting the change. She also stated that at that time the City Council explained that they are now legal non-conforming and don't worry you will be grandfathered in. She stated that she researched the meaning of'grandfathered" and said that she interpreted it to mean forever. She also stated she is concerned that if businesses can be closed for being legal non-conforming, what is to stop City Council or the Planning Commission from telling homeowners of multiple units the same thing. Chairwoman Herrera closed public hearing. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that there are some good issues that have come up and he would like to say that odors are an on-going problem. He also stated that California has always been the State on the forefront; we were the first to pass the smoking laws, smog control. He also stated the plan is to beautify Garvey Avenue and we don't want to see businesses there that are not right for the City. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the issues that have been brought up tonight are about land use and he requested his colleagues to concentrate on that. He also stated that beautification has been brought up and that the City needs change and land use is important. He also stated we need to stay focused, but we also need to let the property owner have time to do what they need to do, but we need to allow the City to move forward too. Commissioner Eng stated that she agrees with Commissioner Ruiz. She stated that this is a land use issue, and it is not the appropriate land use for this site, but the decision to approve this business was 20 years ago. She also stated that this business had a right to be here and has worked hard to build a customer base. She said that in 1991 the City put a stop to it, but the City should have monitored the site better. She also stated that we have heard concerns from some members of the community, but we also need to be a better neighbor and work with the businesses so they can to address the concerns. She also stated that three years is not enough, as they have invested in the City and they will need the time for a smooth transition to a more appropriate location. 4 Commissioner Hunter stated that she would like to make three recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider. She said her first suggestion is to let Cal Poultry stay in the same location and have the chickens slaughtered at another location and have them brought in daily for freshness and not have chickens on the premises. She said her second recommendation is a one year amortization with a 180 day extension. She also stated her third recommendation is two years with no extensions. Commissioner Ruiz stated he agrees with Commissioner Eng. He said we should give Cal Poultry the three years and at the end of three years, verify if they still need more time to relocate. Commissioner Ruiz made a motion and the motion was clarified by City Attorney Murphy as follows; Commissioner Ruiz motioned that Cal Poultry be given three years and adopt the resolution with staffs recommended extension language as in section D of the staff report. Vice-Chairman Alarcon asked Commissioner Ruiz to repeat the motion. He stated that the amortization period needs to be a fixed period of time, such as 18 month or two years. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the motion was for three years. City Attorney Murphy clarified that Commissioner Ruiz would like the request that the amortization ordinance include an extension option by applicant to reviewed by the Planning Commission instead of City Council. (This portion not audible) Chairwoman Herrera asked City Attorney Murphy what the benefit would be to the City. City Attorney Murphy stated that staff would have to present the extension application to the City Council, but if it goes to the Planning Commission, the applicant has the right to appeal to appeal it to the City Council. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated he was confused on what the motion is. Chairwoman Herrera stated that Commissioner Ruiz is making a motion for three years and applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval of the extension. Commissioner Ruiz stated his motion is for three years, with the Planning Commission approving the extension instead of City Council, and with the extension not having a set date. City Attorney Murphy stated that Commissioner Ruiz's pending motion is to adopt the Resolution as recommended with the extension language, but that the review of the extension would go to the Planning Commission for first. . Commissioner Hunter questioned Chairwoman Herrera what exactly is the motion. Chairwoman Herrera stated what the motion was but was not audible. City Attorney Murphy stated the recommendation is the three year amortization period and the inclusion of the opportunity to come back for a potential extension, and that extension would be stated as it says in the staff report of Section D and read numbers 1 through 8. He also stated that the extension request would have to be presented to the Planning Commission for review. (the last sentence not audible). Chairwoman Herrera asked why staff that would approve the extension. City Attorney Murphy stated staff would review and make recommendations to the Commission, but that ultimately it would be approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ruiz made the motion, seconded by Chairwoman Herrera, to recommend the three year amortization period and to adopt the Resolution as recommended with the language in the staff report be instead of going directly to City Council that the applicant goes to the Planning Commission first for approval of extension. Vote Results were: Yes: Herrera, Ruiz No: Alarcon, Eng, Hunter Abstain: None Absent: None Chairwoman Herrera stated the motion was not passed and asked Commissioners for a new motion. Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunter for a fixed 2 year amortization period with no extension. Vote Results were: Yes: Alarcon, Hunter No: Eng, Herrera, Ruiz Abstain: None Absent: None Chairwoman Herrera stated the motion was not passed and asked Commissioners for a new motion. Commissioner Eng made a motion recommending that the City work with Cal Poultry to determine an amortization period acceptable to both the City and the business that would provide a reasonable timeframe for the business to relocate to a more appropriate location so that the business can continue to serve their customers. City Attorney Murphy stated that this was not a proper motion and explained why. (Not Audible) Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz to recommend three years with no extension and to adopt the Resolution as recommended. Vote Resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Herrera, Ruiz No: Eng Abstain: Hunter Absent: None GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09.01 - The City of Rosemead proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to designate four key areas (nodes) in the City for mixed-use development with limitations on both residential density and building height. The current General Plan allows for mixed-use development along all major commercial corridors in the City. General Plan Amendment 09-01 also proposes the creation of a new commercial Specific Plan land use designation over two commercial areas of the City. The Specific Plan land use designation would affect the following properties: 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, 7867, 7907, 7913, 7919, 7931, 7951, and 8001 Garvey Avenue, 3011 and 3033 Denton Avenue, and 7938 Virginia Street. Lastly, General Plan Amendment 09-01 also includes amending the Circulation Element, the Resource Management Element, and the Public Safety Element to address the proposed land use changes and to comply with Assembly Bill 162 (AB 162) PC RESOLUTION 10.03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING PLANNING DIVISION STAFF TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM TO THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PROGRAM EIR) WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 14, 2008, PURSUANT 'TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15164 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09-01. Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-03 (Exhibit C), a resolution directing staff to prepare an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) which was certified by the City Council on October 14, 2008, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission RECOMMEND that the City Council consider the environmental determination and APPROVE General Plan Amendment 09- 01. Principal Planner Bermejo presented the staff report and gave a power point presentation. She also stated Lisa Brownfield, Land Use Consultant from Hogle-Ireland, and the Traffic Consultant from KOA are present to answer any questions. Lisa Brownfield, Land Use Consultant presented the Circulation Element Principal Planner Bermejo stated that she received two letters from property owners in the mail and provided an overview of each letter. She stated one is from the owner of the Auto Auction site, requesting that this item be postponed due to the fact they are out of the country. She stated that because this item will be going to the City Council for approval, the property owner will have the opportunity to discuss their issues at the Council meeting. She also stated the second letter was from property owners Mr.B Mrs. Ann Lieu of 7951 Garvey, who were concerned about the new Specific Plan land use designation on their property. Principal Planner Bermejo presented staff recommendations to Planning Commission, which included revising the draft specific plan land use designation to a High Intensity Commercial land use designation, and omitting the property located at 7951 Garvey Avenue from that designation. City Attorney Murphy clarified staffs recommendation to Planning Commission. Chairwoman Herrera asked Commissioners if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked staff to elaborate on how the new designations for mix-use were selected. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the Subcommittee looked at different scenarios, lot size, density, entrance to the city, and provided and overview of reasons why the node development pattern was better than the corridor land use pattern. Lisa Brownfield stated we not only looked at surrounding uses but where public services where and explained the benefits of having mixed use where public services are located. Commissioner Eng asked if the four-story height limitation included the first floor being commercial use Lisa Brownfield replied yes, the maximum will be four stories with the first one being commercial use. Commissioner Eng asked what the maximum height of the four-story limitation would be. Principal Planner Bermejo stated there will be a numerical height limit proposed in the development standards which are currently being drafted. Commissioner Eng stated that was her next question; do we have development standards on height requirements. Chairwoman Herrera asked if Mayor Margaret Clark and Councilwoman Polly Low were on the Subcommittee who submitted these recommendations. Principal Planner replied yes that is correct. Chairwoman Herrera opened the public hearing Josephine Yang stated she is speaking for the property owners, being affected by the mixed-use land use designation change, who are out of the country at the moment. She expressed her concern that the property owner will suffer a substantial financial loss if this is approved. She also stated that this is a new Planning Commission and the Planning Commission that approved the General Plan in 2007 is not present to answer any questions. She also stated that the City needs to have some compassion for the present business owners. Warren Lieu stated that he is speaking in behalf of his parents. He stated that the amendment will financially affect his family's income and property. Lisa Brownfield stated Principal Planner Bermejo recommended that their property (7951 Garvey) not be included in the High Intensity Commercial land use designation, and asked it that would be acceptable to him. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that is correct is will stay as is. Warren Lieu stated he feels that is alright but needs to talk to his parents. Simon Lee stated that he would like to request that the mixed-use designation be included on the properties at Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue, and on the Auto Auction site. Robert Stacket, stated he owns a piece of property next to the auto auction which is a mobile home park. He also stated he is concerned how this General Plan Amendment will affect this parcel. He also stated that seniors occupy this mobile home park, and that they will have no where to go. Principal Planner Bermejo stated tonight's General Plan Amendment is to keep that parcel designation commercial as it was in the 80's. She clarified that it will not be included in the High Intensity Commercial designation. Brian Lewin stated that he understands from staffs comments that the ultimate goal is to build the nodes and to spread out from those nodes to fill in the corridors. He asked staff if is understanding is correct. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that this General Plan, which is a twenty year vision, only included the development in the four node areas and not the corridors. Brian Lewin asked what the longer term goal is proposed to be Principal Planner Bermejo stated in future, 15 to 20 years from now, the future of mixed use could be readdressed Lisa Brownfield also stated that would be twenty years from now Brian Lewin stated he would like to request that filling in the corridors be mentioned in the General Plan because he has concerns that future developers and retailers may be concemed with projects becoming legal-nonconforming. His second concern is that we may reach the population of 61,000 by the year of 2015. He would also like to request that the language of Policy 1.7 on page 2-20 of the General Plan be re-instated because he feels it is important to stay there. Chairwoman Herrera asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. None Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to ADOPT Resolution No. 10.03 (Exhibit C), a resolution directing staff to prepare an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) which was certified by the City Council on October 14, 2008, pursuant to CECIA Guidelines Section 15164 and RECOMMEND that the City Council consider the environmental determination and APPROVE General Plan Amendment 09-01. Vote Resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Wong confirmed the vote and stated that this item will be presented at the City Council Meeting of April 13, 2010. He also stated this is a tentative date. C. ZONE CHANGE 10-01 - The City of Rosemead proposes to change the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the 0-S (Open Space) zoning designation. The proposed zone change will bring the zoning designation of these parks into consistency with the City's existing General Plan goals and policies, as required by State law. The following parks will be affected by this zone change: Angelus Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5283-032-903), Garvey Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, and 5287-020.904), Guess Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5389-004-800), Klingerman Park (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5282022-270 and 5282-022-271), Rosemead Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 8592-018-902), Sally Tanner Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5389-001-903), Triangle Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5281-032-900), and Zapopan Park (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5288-005-800, 5288-005-801, 5288-005- 802,5288-005-804,5288-005-805, and 5288-005-806). PC RESOLUTION 10.04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 10-01 AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 887, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF EIGHT (8) CITY PARKS TO THE 0-S (OPEN SPACE) ZONING DESIGNATION. THE FOLLOWING PARKS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ZONE CHANGE: ANGELUS PARK (APN: 5283-032-903), GARVEY PARK (APNs: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, and 5287-020-904), GUESS PARK (APN: 5389-004-800), KLINGERMAN PARK (APNs: 5282022-270 and 5282-022-271), ROSEMEAD PARK (APN: 8592-018-902), SALLY TANNER PARK (APN: 5389-001-903), TRIANGLE PARK (APN: 5281-032-900), and ZAPOPAN PARK (APNs: 5288-005-800, 5288-005-801, 5288-005-802, 5288-005-804, 5288-005: 805, and 5288-005-806). RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10- 04, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 887, changing the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the 0-S (Open Space) zoning designation. Assistant Planner Trinh presented the staff report. Chairwoman Herrera asked the Commissioners if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if this was strictly a housekeeping matter. Staff replied this is correct. Commissioner Ruiz asked if the open space zone allow the City to request federal grants. Staff replied yes it will. Chairwoman Herrera opened public hearing. Rick Loya stated that he has been a resident of Rosemead for fifty years. He also stated that he does not understand exactly what a zone change means. He asked for clarification of exactly what will be happening to the City parks. He also gave a brief history of when the parks were built, and he expressed how important the parks are to the community. He said please save our parks. Commissioner Ruiz stated he understands his concerns, and that this will allow the City to get federal funding to improve our parks. He also stated we will continue to provide recreation for our community. Commissioner Eng questioned if we are making changes to the park or if we are just reclassifying the zone to be able to get federal funding. Principal Planner Bermejo replied it is strictly reclassifying the land as open space. Todd (last name not audible), resident of Rosemead, expressed concern with the zone change and stated that he and his wife use the park for exercising. He said he wanted to make sure that this change will not affect them using the park. Nancy Eng stated we are not selling the park. We are just reclassifying it to apply for grants to improve the park. Chairwoman Herrera closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded my Commissioner Hunter to ADOPT Resolution No. 10.04, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 887, changing the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the 0-S (Open Space) zoning designation. Vote Resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 10 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRWOMAN & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng stated she attended a Gold Line Metro Meeting last Saturday with Traffic Commissioner Brian Lewin and told the Planning Commission it was regarding the initial review of environmental impacts of the project. Chairwoman Herrera stated she had attended a Gold Line Metro Meeting also. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER & STAFF Parking Concern at 3365 Walnut Grove Avenue Principal Planner Bermejo stated she wanted to give update on the parking concern at 3365 Walnut Grove Avenue. She said that Lt. Tim Murakami (Chief of Police) and Ray Rodriquez (Public Safety Supervisor) have been monitoring the location. She reported that at this time they have not seen any parking violations. She also stated Code Enforcement is still monitoring this site. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 15, 2010. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. k Diana Herrera AST: Chairwoman Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 11 CC RESOLUTION 2010-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09-01 WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead ("City") adopted a comprehensive update of its General Plan in 2008 to guide decision-making about land use, circulation, resource management, public safety, noise, and the general quality of life in our City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code §§21000 et seq.) and State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §§15000 et seq.), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the Rosemead General Plan ('Project') analyzing all potential adverse environmental impacts. of Project implementation; and WHEREAS, the certified Final EIR identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, these effects can be mitigated to below levels of significance except for the unavoidable significant impacts to population and housing, recreation, utilities and service systems: solid waste, transportation, and air quality; and WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines §15093 requires that if the Project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the Project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are accepted if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 1, 2010 to consider the adoption of General Plan Amendment 09-01, attached hereto as Attachment "A", at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the General Plan Amendment 09-01 were heard; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2010, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead, recommended that the City Council consider an Addendum EIR based on the 2008 Program EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 13, 2010 to consider the Addendum to the certified Final EIR, adoption of environmental findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of the General Plan, at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the General Plan were heard; and 1 EXHIBIT E City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 2 of 13 WHEREAS, the City Council fully studied the proposed General Plan, Addendum to the certified Final EIR, environmental findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and considered all public comments; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES, AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: Section I - CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 Findings. The City Council hereby finds that: 1. An Addendum instead of a subsequent EIR has been prepared, as General Plan Amendment 09-01 is not proposed to make substantial changes to the 2008 General Plan that would require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and 2. An Addendum instead of a subsequent EIR has been prepared, as General Plan Amendment 09-01 did not cause substantial changes to occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would have required major revisions to the previous EIR due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and 3. An Addendum instead of a subsequent EIR has been prepared, as no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following: a) The General Plan Amendment will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. FINDING: Only minor revisions are proposed by General Plan Amendment 09-01, involving text and map changes to clarify the City's intent, and to expand upon and/or provide additional focus for action strategies. Other minor revisions are proposed to address recent changes in State planning law regarding consideration of flood hazards as part of a Housing Element. The environmental effects of General Plan Amendment 09-01 were assessed in terms of whether the impacts would be substantially different from and/or more severe than the impacts identified in the 2008 General Plan. Each impact topic is described below: 2 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 3 of 13 A. Aesthetics: Proposed changes in land use planning policies would not increase building intensity standards in any of the affected areas, compared to the adopted Plan standards. Therefore, aesthetic impacts related to building height and bulk would be similar to and no worse than the impacts identified in the 2008 General Plan EIR. Less land area is now designated for medium to high density residential development in mixed use settings. Therefore, the updated Plan would result in less of a residential character in some mixed use areas, compared to the adopted Plan. Development standards and project review requirements will be required to ensure quality and character of design would not be affected. Therefore, aesthetic impacts involving new development and effects on the quality and character of the site and surroundings would be similar to and no worse than the impacts identified in the 2008 General Plan EIR. No changes in any lighting sources or lighting regulations are proposed, thus, the updated Plan would result in no changes in potential lighting impacts. B. Air Quality: No new sources of air pollutant emissions would occur as a result of the proposed Plan revisions. Therefore, potential impacts would be no worse and no additional control measures would be warranted beyond than those identified for the adopted Plan. Total traffic generated within the Planning area would be lower under the proposed Plan as described in full below. Therefore, total vehicular emissions would be lower than estimated for the adopted Plan. Air quality impacts would be similar to, and in some cases less than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. C. Biological Resources: All of the updated land use policies affect land in the City's already urbanized area along developed corridors. There are no sensitive biological resources in these areas. Therefore, no impacts to biological resources would occur due to the updated Land Use Element. Changes in vehicular trip volumes and distributions associated with the Land Use Element revisions would have no effect on any biological resources. Revisions to the Public Safety Element pertain to documentation of flood hazards and to ongoing flood risk management programs. These changes would not affect the use of any land areas that support an important biological resource. Proposed revisions to require greater variety in the City's street tree palette are expected to reduce potential problems of disease and blight, which could also have a positive effect on the biological and aesthetic values of the street trees. Biological resource impacts would be similar to, and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. D. Geology and Soils: Proposed Land Use Element revisions would result in a decrease in development potential for non-residential uses and a reduced potential increase in housing and residential population. This would mean that over the long term, the land use plan revisions would result in fewer habitable structures that could be affected by local 3 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 4 of 13 geological hazards and soils constraints. These changes would have no effect on any existing geology/soils constraints or any related regulations governing design and construction of structures that could be affected by such constraints. Geology and soils impacts would be similar to, and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The proposed Land Use Element revisions would allow for less non-residential development and less residential development when compared to the adopted plan. Therefore, it is anticipated that the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes generally associated with commercial and industrial activities would decrease as a result of the General Plan Amendment. The primary cause for the decrease in non-residential development is the substantial conversion of Mixed-Use land uses (that support floor area ratios (FAR) of 1.6 to 2.0) to Commercial and High-Intensity Commercial land uses (that supports a reduced FAR of 0.35). No new kinds of industrial or commercial uses would be allowed that could involve handling of higher volumes or more dangerous kinds of hazardous substances/wastes. All existing federal, state, county and local regulations governing the storage, transport, use, generation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes will continue to apply. Revisions to the Circulation Element would not affect any routes where hazardous materials can be transported, and would have no impacts involving hazards and hazardous materials. Revisions to the Resource Management and Public Safety Elements would have no effect on how land is assessed for possible environmental contamination or how hazardous substances/wastes are managed. Potential impacts involving hazards and hazardous materials would be similar to, and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Potential impacts involving hazards and hazardous materials would be similar to, and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. F. Hydrology and Water Quality: Proposed revisions to the Land Use Element would not change any land use policies related to sites affected by flood hazards. No new types of land uses would be allowed that could have a more adverse effect on surface and ground water quality or supplies. No regulations or project review procedures related to storm drainage and water quality controls would be affected by any of the proposed General Plan revisions. Proposed revisions in the Public Safety Element would actually increase the level of scrutiny of future development proposals, with respect to flood hazards and mitigation thereof. Hydrology and water quality impacts would be similar to and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. G. Land Use and Planning: All of the proposed General Plan revisions affect land in already developed areas, along well-established corridors. No changes to the established physical structure of any part of the community would be required to implement the proposed refinements to 4 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 5 of 13 land use policies. There is no land in the City of Rosemead that is governed by some form of habitat conservation plan or any other kind of conservation plan; therefore, the updated Plan elements would have no effect on such plans. Proposed changes in mixed use areas are consistent with regional planning strategies to facilitate future growth in established urban areas and in nodes of intensity that can link to transit opportunities. Land use and planning impacts would be similar to and no more adverse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. H. Noise: Proposed General Plan revisions would not allow for any new or more intensive noise sources, and would not relax or otherwise affect any policies, standards, regulations or plan review procedures related to noise control and mitigation. Since traffic volumes in all nine traffic analysis zones would decline, compared to the adopted Plan, roadway noise levels are not expected to be any higher than was estimated for the adopted Plan. Noise impacts would be similar to and possibly less than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Population and Housing: Proposed Land Use Element revisions would decrease total residential capacity by approximately 5,444 housing units and 18,906 residents and would reduce total non-residential development capacity by approximately 4,090,000 square feet. Total long-term residential growth, therefore, would be lower and total economic growth in terms of potential job base and business property values would decrease, compared to the adopted Plan. No land. is being re-designated to allow development which was formerly targeted for some conservation or resource management or extraction purpose. No changes to any supporting infrastructure systems are proposed, therefore, there would be no direct growth inducing effects in terms of removing a physical obstacle to growth. J. Public Services: Demand for public services related to residential population would be reduced, because the updated Plan would reduce the City's residential capacity, as noted above. No physical environmental impacts to alter, expand or build new public facilities, therefore, would occur. Since future commercial, industrial and other non-residential development would occur in the City's already urbanized areas, where law enforcement, public safety and fire protection services are already available, no additional facilities associated with those services would be required to maintain sufficient response times. Public services impacts would be similar to and no worse than the level of impact identified in the 2008 GP EIR. K. Recreation: Since the total potential residential capacity in the updated Plan would be lower than in the adopted Plan, demand for parkland and impacts to existing parks and recreation resources would be reduced. The increased development potential for non-residential land uses is not expected to result in a significant impact involving the demand for 5 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 6 of 13 parkland or use of existing parks and recreation resources, since those resources are enjoyed primarily and sometimes exclusively, by local residents. Recreation impacts would be similar to and possibly less than the level of impact identified in the 2008 GP EIR. L. Transportation and Traffic: Traffic impacts associated with the proposed changes. in land use plan policies were assessed by KOA Corporation, based on the traffic impact analysis they completed for the 2008 General Plan. Trip generation for each of the nine traffic analysis zones (TAZ) was recalculated and distributed to the 28 study area intersections, to determine whether long range congestion impacts during the AM and PM peak hours would differ substantially from the findings of the previous traffic impact analysis. Overall, the updated traffic study determined that the proposed Land Use Plan revisions would not result in any new significant intersection impacts and also would not worsen projected LOS at any intersection that was previously projected to have a significant impact. Specific findings include: • Trip generation for the nine TAZs would change as follows: o AM Peak - Residential trips would increase in four to the TAZs, where medium and high residential densities are to be focused, and non-residential trips would decrease in eight of the nine TAZs. C, PM Peak - Residential trips would increase in four of the TAZs, where medium and high residential densities are to be focused, and non-residential trips would decrease in all nine TAZ. • Eight intersections impacted in the AM peak hour under the 2008 General Plan would continue to have significant peak hour impacts with the proposed Plan revisions • Eleven intersections impacted in the PM peak hour under the 2008 General Plan would continue to have significant impacts with the proposed Plan revisions • Significant AM peak hour congestion impacts that were forecast for the 2008 Plan would be reduced to less than significant at five intersections with the proposed Plan • The intersection of San Gabriel Blvd. at Garvey Ave. would be significantly impacted in the AM Peak hour, but not in the PM peak hour under the revised Plan. • Significant impacts were not forecast for the 2008 Plan or the proposed Plan revisions for 15 intersections during the AM peak hour and at eight intersections during the PM peak hour 6 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 . Page 7 of 13 • Long-range daily traffic volumes on four roadway segments are projected to exceed desired volume%capacity ratios, compared to fifteen with the adopted Plan M. Utilities and Service Systems: Total residential demand for water supply and wastewater collection and treatment systems would be lower and total residential solid waste disposal requirements would be lower because the total residential capacity would be reduced by approximately 5,444 housing units. With a non-residential development potential of approximately 4,090,000 less square feet, water demand, wastewater collection and treatment needs, and solid waste disposal requirements from commercial and industrial uses would probably be higher than with the adopted Plan. Solid waste disposal impacts from the Rosemead planning area would be cumulatively considerable, due to anticipated near-term closures of the two landfills that currently receive a large majority of the City's solid wastes. This impact is consistent with the findings of the 2008 GP EIR for the adopted Plan. Impacts on the local and regional storm drainage network would be about the same for the adopted Plan or. the updated Plan, since the planning area is already mostly developed and a substantial increase in impervious surface area that generates runoff would not occur. Impacts to the Utilities and Services systems would be similar to the impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR, and would not result in any new significant impacts. N. Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts: Proposed General Plan revisions involving site-specific land use designations would have no effect on land outside of Rosemead and would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with the use of land, i.e. aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils constraints, mineral resources, or noise. Since traffic volumes throughout the planning area are projected to decline, compared to the volumes projected for the adopted Plan, there would be no cumulatively considerable traffic congestion impacts or traffic-related air quality or noise impacts due to the proposed General Plan revisions. Proposed changes to the Land Use Plan would change the ultimate mix of jobs/housing opportunities in the planning area, i.e., more weighted with employment growth than residential growth. This is not expected to affect the rates of residential or employment growth in Rosemead, however, and no conflicts with regional growth forecasts are anticipated. Proposed revisions to the Resource Management Element could reduce the level of potential cumulative effects on parks and recreation resources inside and outside of Rosemead, to the extent that the proposed recreation master plan program is successful. As noted in the preceding discussion under Utilities and Service Systems, solid waste disposal impacts from the Rosemead planning area would be cumulatively considerable, due to anticipated near-term closures of the two landfills that currently receive a large majority of the City's solid wastes. This impact is consistent with the findings of the 2008 GP EIR for the adopted Plan. Additional residential and non-residential growth is desired and being planned for in the adopted Plan as well as the updated Plan. The proposed Plan would establish lower limits of total non-residential 7 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 8 of 13 growth and residential growth. No revisions to the General Plan are proposed that would have a direct growth inducing effect, in terms of expanding utilities and transportation infrastructure into undeveloped areas or designation of any open land for development that was previously designated for 'conservation, resource management, open space or recreation purposes. Section 2 - CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 Findings. The City Council hereby finds that: 1. The Addendum to the certified Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act based on evidence presented in Section 1 of this resolution; and 2. The Addendum to the certified Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project such that a City Council public hearing was held on October 14, 2008. 3. The Addendum to the certified Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis in that the EIR has been subject to comment and revision by City staff and reflects the independent judgment of the Rosemead City Council. Section 3 - CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 Findings. The City Council declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate, through adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, all potential impacts that may result from the Project. However, there are several areas in which there could be unavoidable significant impacts. These areas include population and housing, transportation, recreation, air quality, and utilities and service systems: solid waste. CEQA requires that the Council adopt at least one of the following three findings for each unavoidable significant impact: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. I. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The following have been identified as unavoidable significant impacts: 8 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 9 of 13 Population and Housing -The General Plan has the potential to result in a substantial population and housing unit increase in comparison to population and housing growth projections at the local, sub-regional, and regional levels. Mitigation measures PH-1 and PH-2 in the certified Final EIR's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan are included to assist with coordination with regional policy makers; however, the measures are not able to reduce the impacts to less than significant. With regards to Population and Housing the City Council hereby adopts Finding No. 3. Transportation - Implementation of the General Plan may result in a substantial increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and an individual or cumulative level of service condition that exceeds standards established by the City. Regional traffic growth and increased development intensities within the City will result in increased through traffic volumes on Rosemead streets. While the Circulation Element includes policies and physical roadway and control improvements, that over time will improve service levels, the certainty and timing of such cannot be established. Accordingly, the traffic impacts of General Plan development will be significant and unavoidable. While the General Plan has policies and programs that help minimize impacts, the following impacts remain: 0 Walnut Grove Ave. at Marshall St. (a.m. and p.m. peak hours) 0 Walnut Grove Ave. at San Gabriel Boulevard. (p.m. peak hours) That being said, the construction of new facilities and the acquisition of land will take a concentrated effort by both City staff and local decision makers. At this time, there is no guarantee that new facilities will be built. No feasible additional measures are available to further mitigate impacts at the analyzed intersections. With regards to Transportation the City Council hereby adopts Finding No. 3. Recreation - Both the current and proposed General Plans note that the National Parks and Recreation Association (NPRA) recommends 2.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons and that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) recommends 4 acres per 1,000 persons. The City currently provides 0.75 acres per 1,000 persons. The proposed General Plan update anticipates an increase in population and coupled with the lack of available land within the City, the issue of providing parkland will be exacerbated. In order to meet the goal of 2.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the City will need to provide an additional 73.3 acres that can be used for public park and recreation purposes. The lack of sufficient parks and recreation opportunities could result in the accelerated deterioration of existing facilities due to potential overuse. Additionally, the lack of adequate, local recreational facilities increases reliance on the facilities of other jurisdictions that in turn could result in accelerated deterioration of those facilities as well. The lack of available park and recreation facilities, therefore, is considered a 9 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 10 of 13 significant project-level and cumulative impact. Mitigation measures R-1 and R-2 in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan are included to assist with coordination with regional policy makers; however, the measures are not able to reduce the impacts to less than significant. With regards to Recreation the City Council hereby adopts Finding No. 3. Air Quality - With implementation of the identified General Plan policies and implementation measures, short-term and long-term air quality impacts will be reduced. However, the degree to which these measures will reduce emissions cannot be fully quantified. Cumulatively, emissions of all pollutant levels will continue to exceed the SCAQMD threshold levels, although the cumulative emissions of CO, VOG, and NOx are projected to decrease relative to current levels. Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 are projected to increase and continue to exceed the SCAQMD threshold criteria for significance. Emissions of SOx are also expected to increase, but not significantly. Commission of CO2 will also increase. Impacts associated with PM10 and PM2.5 emissions and cumulative impacts are significant and unavoidable. GHG emissions will be reduced over the life of the General Plan update. Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions will be less than significant. Impacts to sensitive receptors will be less than significant. Given the extent of this project, impacts to air quality will be significant and unavoidable. Additional mitigation was considered to reduce impacts associated with emissions of particulate matter, however they have been found to be infeasible to implement at this time due to the broad scope of the General Plan update. No mitigation has been included. With regards to Air Quality the City Council hereby adopts Finding No. 3. Utilities and Service Systems: Solid Waste - Solid waste disposal is an issue of regional concern. Many programs are in place at local and countywide levels to reduce waste generation and increase landfill capacity (at existing and proposed new sites). The Chiquita Canyon and Puente Hills Landfills are the end destination of the City of Rosemead's solid waste. Both of these landfills have enough capacity to accommodate the City's existing and future needs. However, Chiquita Canyon is scheduled, to close in 2019 and Puente Hills in 2013. After their closures, waste must be taken to alternative sites. Despite the continued efforts of the Los Angeles Area Integrated Waste Management Authority to increase its diversion rates, technologies are not currently available to completely recycle, destroy, or reuse all solid waste. Likewise, continued disposal of solid waste at landfills would contribute to the eventual closure of existing landfills and any future landfill sites. Although the amount of solid waste originating from Rosemead is very small relative to the volumes accepted annually at each of the regional landfills, diminishing landfill space is a significant regional issue, and cumulative impacts are considered significant. With regards to Solid Waste the City Council hereby adopts Finding No. 3. 10 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 11 of 13 Section 4 - CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 Findings. The City Council declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Rosemead General Plan to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures in the certified Final EIR, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts listed in Section 2 acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations: 1. The Land Use Element will contribute toward the preservation of the City's distinctive residential character and individual neighborhood identity by preserving existing residential densities in long-established neighborhoods. (Draft General Plan, p. XX) 2. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element support the maintenance and stability of existing residential neighborhoods contributing to Rosemead's unique character. (Draft General Plan, p. xx) 3. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element will provide for expanded opportunities for concentrated commercial development that will reduce trip generation and will establish additional direction regarding revitalization of the key corridors. (Draft General Plan, p. xx) 4. The anticipated enhancement of Valley Boulevard and the area's reinvention as a vibrant, mixed-use area consistent with General Plan policy direction will lead to a beneficial aesthetic result. (Draft General Plan, p. xx) 5. The anticipated in-fill development and redevelopment of properties along Valley Boulevard and Garvey Avenue resulting from implementation of the goals and policies of the Land Use Element are anticipated to have a beneficial impact on jobs and tax revenues to the community. (Draft General Plan, p. 2-xx.) 6. Implementation of the Land Use Element will create opportunities for high- quality, well-designed mixed use residential and commercial projects that will rely on appropriate Mixed Use Design Guidelines to achieve a quality product. (Certified Final EIR, p. 4-8) 7. Mixed Use development will result in reduced need for auto trips and will encourage walking and bicycling by providing residences, jobs, and shopping opportunities within close proximity of each other. (Draft General Plan, p. 2-xx) 8. The General Plan will result in the beneficial effect of providing opportunities for development of new housing and employment-generating uses. (Draft General Plan, p. 2-xx) 11 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 12 of 13 9. The implementation of in-lieu fees for public art will promote the Arts in public . spaces. (Certified Final EIR, p. 4-9) 10. Implementation of transportation goals and policies in the General Plan will have the beneficial impacts of increasing the use of alternative modes of transportation, which also benefits air quality. (Certified Final EIR, p. 4-174) 11. Requiring Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs for major projects as an in-lieu mitigation measure will benefit the City where physical traffic mitigations are infeasible or undesirable to the City. (Certified Final EIR, p. 4-174) 12. Preparing a Parkland Leasing Program, along with conducting a Parkland and Recreational Facilities Acquisition and Development study will aid the City in creating new passive and active open space areas and recreational amenities for City residents. (Certified Final EIR, p. 4-158, 4-159) 13. Implementation of the land use policies related to mixed use development will encourage pedestrian activity and transit use. As a result, air quality and noise benefits are anticipated as people walk or use the mass transit rather than individual cars/trucks. 14. Implementation of the land use policies related to commercial and industrial development will continue to provide an economic engine for both residents and for the City without creating undue impacts on transportation systems, air quality resources, and noise resources. 15. Implementation of the land use policies regarding potential housing production in both mixed use settings as well as neighborhood settings will assist the City in meeting its housing "fair share" as determined by SCAG. 16.The implementation of a curbside commingled recycling program, together with public education, will reduce waste generation and lessen impacts on local landfills. Section 5 - General Plan Consistency with State Law Determination. The City Council finds that the Rosemead General Plan as proposed is consistent with the requirements of State law governing general plans. Section 6 - CEQA Document Adoption and Certification. Based on the entire administrative record before the City Council on the Project, including the above findings and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby takes the following actions: (i) certifies the Addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report, (ii) adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts described herein that remain significant and unavoidable. Section 7 - Adoption of the General Plan. Based on the entire administrative record before the City Council on the Project, including the above findings and all written 12 City Council Meeting April 13, 2010 Page 13 of 13 and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby adopts the Rosemead General Plan. Section 8. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF April, 2010. Gary Taylor, Mayor CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead at a meeting held on the 13th day of April, 2010 by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk 13 Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report Rosemead General Plan Update April 13, 2010 Prepared for: City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 Prepared by: Hogle-Ireland, Inc. 2860 Michelle Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92627 EXHIBIT F Introduction and Project Description Rosemead 2008 General Plan Update Culminating a six-year planning process, the Rosemead City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the General Plan on October 14, 2008. The General Plan establishes the City's decision-making framework for moving from the Rosemead of today toward the desired community of the future. It guides the City to the year 2025 by establishing goals and policies that address land use, circulation, safety, and open space. Each of these issues affects quality of life in Rosemead and the economic health of the community. Incorporating input from community leaders, the public, and businesses into the General Plan works to retain the qualities that make the City unique, responds to the dynamics of growth in the Los Angeles region, and meets the changing needs of residents. Implementation of the General Plan will ensure that future development projects in the City are consistent with the community's goals, and that adequate urban services are available to meet the needs of all new development. As Rosemead moves towards 2025, the City, its residents, and the business community are committed to implementing a long-range plan that enhances the physical, economic, and human resources of this diverse and community-oriented City. Main goals identified in the General Plan are to: • Enhance the commercial areas along key corridors, and most specifically Garvey Avenue and Valley Boulevard; Create an economically viable downtown that blends retail, office, and residential uses in a walkable, attractive setting; Enhance parks and recreational space in underserved neighborhoods; Accommodate the demand for quality mixed- use development that can contribute to commercial growth and enhance opportunities for higher-density residential development; Protect homeowner investments and the availability of well-maintained, relatively affordable housing units; Minimize the impact of traffic associated with growth within the San Gabriel Valley and broader region. Rosemead General Plan EIR Addendum 2 April 13, 2010 2008 Certified General Plan EIR A Final Environmental Impact Report concerning the updated General Plan was certified by Rosemead City Council Resolution No. CC-2008-66, on October 14, 2008. Findings were made in accordance with Sections 15090, 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was also adopted, pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the State CEQA Statutes. The conclusions of the Final EIR were that most environmental impacts resulting from long range implementation of the General Plan would be less than significant, or reduced to less than significant with the mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP. The following impacts were found to be unavoidable and significant, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted to explain how the benefits of the updated Plan outweigh these negative environmental consequences. Unavoidable Significant Impacts Population and Housing: Potential to result in a substantial population and housing unit increase in comparison to population and housing growth projections at the local and regional levels. Mitigation measures PIH and P2H in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan were adopted to assist with coordination with regional policy makers; however, those measures would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Transportation: Could be a substantial increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and an individual or cumulative level of service condition that exceeds standards established by the City. Regional traffic growth and increased development intensities within the City will result in increased through traffic volumes on Rosemead streets. While the Circulation Element includes policies and physical roadway and control improvements that over time will improve service levels, the certainty and timing of such cannot be established. Accordingly, the traffic impacts of the 2008 General Plan were determined to be significant and unavoidable at the following intersections: • Walnut Grove Ave at Mission Dr. am and pm peak hours • Walnut Grove Ave at Marshall St. - am and pm peak hours • Rosemead Blvd at Glendon Way - pm peak hour • Del Mar Ave at Hellman Ave. - am peak hour • New Ave at Garvey Ave. - am and pm peak hours • Del Mar Ave at Garvey Ave. - pm peak hour • Walnut Grove Ave at Garvey Ave. - am and pm peak hours • San Gabriel Blvd at SR 60 westbound ramps - am and pm peak hours Construction of roadway improvements and the acquisition of land would take a concentrated effort by both city staff and local decision makers. At this time there is no Rosemead General Plan EIR Addendum 3 April 13, 2010 guarantee that new facilities will be built. No feasible additional measures are available to further mitigate impacts at the analyzed intersections. Recreation: National Parks and Recreation Association NPRA recommends 2.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons and that the Southern California Association of Governments SCAG recommends 4 acres per 1,000 persons. Furthermore, the City had its own goal of providing one acre of parkland for 1,000 residents. The City did not provide 0.75 acres per 1,000 residents and therefore had not yet met its own goal. The 2008 General Plan eliminated the City's goal of providing one acre of parkland. The 2008 General Plan anticipated an increase in population which, coupled with the lack of available land within the City, the issue of providing parkland was anticipated to be exacerbated. To meet the goal of one acre of parkland per 1,000 residents, the City would have to acquire an additional 37.16 acres that can be used for public park and recreation purposes. The lack of sufficient parks and recreation opportunities could result in the accelerated deterioration of existing facilities due to potential overuse. Additionally, the lack of adequate local recreational facilities increases reliance on the facilities of other jurisdictions that in turn could result in accelerated deterioration of those facilities as well. The lack of available park and recreation facilities, therefore, was considered a significant project level and cumulative impact. Mitigation measures RI and R2 in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan were adopted to assist with coordination with regional policy makers; however, the measures are not sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Air Quality: With implementation of the identified 2008 General Plan policies and implementation measures, short-term and long-term air quality impacts would be reduced. However the degree to which these measures will reduce emissions cannot be fully quantified. Cumulatively, emissions of all pollutant levels were projected to exceed the SCAQMD threshold levels, although the cumulative emissions of CO, VOG and NOx were projected to decrease relative to current levels. Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 were projected to increase .and continue to exceed the SCAQMD threshold criteria for significance. Emissions of SOx were also expected to increase but not significantly. Emissions of C02 would also increase. Impacts associated with PMio and PM2.5 emissions and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. GHG emissions would be reduced over the life of the General Plan update; therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions will be less than significant. Impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Given the extent of this project, impacts to air quality were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Additional mitigation measures were considered to reduce impacts associated with emissions of particulate matter; however, they were found to be infeasible to implement at this time due to the broad scope of the General Plan update. No mitigation for this impact was adopted. Utilities and Service Systems: Solid waste disposal is an issue of regional concern. Many programs are in place at local and countywide levels to reduce waste generation and increase landfill capacity at existing and proposed new sites. The Chiquita Canyon and Rosemead General Plan EIR Addendum 4 April 13, 2010 Puente Hills Landfills are the end destination of the City of Rosemead solid waste. Both of these landfills have enough capacity to accommodate the City's existing and future needs; however, Chiquita Canyon is scheduled to close in 2019 and Puente Hills in 2013. After their closures, waste must be taken to alternative sites. Despite the continued efforts of the Los Angeles Area Integrated Waste Management Authority to increase its diversion rates, technologies are not currently available to completely recycle, destroy or reuse all solid waste. Likewise, continued disposal of solid waste at landfills would contribute to the eventual closure of existing landfills and any future landfill sites. Although the amount of solid waste originating from Rosemead is very small relative to the volumes accepted annually at each of the regional landfills, diminishing landfill space is a significant regional issue and cumulative impacts were (are) considered significant. Proposed General Plan Revisions-2010 In 2009, the City initiated a minor General Plan update to re-address the mixed-use corridor designations. As part of the 2009 update, a City Council subcommittee comprised of two City Council representatives met with Planning Division staff and planning professionals to consider changing the land use designations for some areas along Rosemead's corridors. The subcommittee evaluated a number of land use options and ultimately presented the findings at a joint Planning Commission - City Council study session on September 22, 2009. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council endorsed a concept and directed the Planning staff to modify. the General Plan in accordance with the concept. A number of minor revisions to the 2008 General Plan are now proposed, involving text and map changes to clarify the City's intent, and to expand upon and/or provide additional focus for action strategies. Other minor revisions are proposed to address recent changes in State planning law regarding consideration of flood hazards as part of a Housing Element. Revisions to the General Plan Elements are summarized below. Introduction 1. Add text to describe efforts to re-assess the City's mixed-use corridor policies, and to highlight mitigation of flood hazards as an objective of the Public Safety Element. Land Use 1. Specify locations of Commercial designations along major arterials, and clarify maximum floor area ratio of 0.35:1. 2. Specify required hotel amenities. 3. Establish a High Intensity Commercial designation and apply it to 19 acres in two project areas. One area includes 10 parcels, totaling 15.6 acres on the north side of Garvey Avenue, between Del Mar Avenue and San Gabriel Avenue. The second area includes three parcels, totaling 3.4 acres, located on the southeast corner of Valley Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue. It is envisioned that the Rosemead General Plan EIR Addendum 5 April 13, 2010 High Intensity Commercial areas will be redeveloped into cohesively planned sub-regional commercial centers that provide goods and services in a larger retail form, with ancillary smaller retail uses supporting the sub-regional commercial uses. The High Intensity Commercial areas will also result in a higher level of site design including architectural character and urban design, vehicular access, parking, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities. The High Intensity Commercial designation allows for a collection of signature commercial retail anchors, general retail outlets, casual to upscale restaurants, and upscale overnight accommodations. 4. Clarify the policies for Mixed Use Residential/Commercial, and specify the location for these policies on Valley Boulevard, between Muscatel Avenue and Valley Boulevard, and on Garvey Avenue between Charlotte Avenue and Walnut Grove Avenue. Also, modify the upper limit of residential density from 30 units/acre to 25-30 units/acre. 5. Specify policies for Mixed Use High Density Residential/Commercial will apply to the eastern end of Valley Boulevard and south of Garey Avenue, just west of the City's eastern boundary. Also, modify the upper limit of residential density from 60 units/acre to 36-60 units/acre. 6. Clarify application of Mixed-Use Industrial/Commercial category as limited to properties along San Gabriel Boulevard south of Hellman Avenue to Park Street, along San Gabriel Avenue south of the SCE easement to Rush Street, and on Garvey Avenue from Walnut Grove to Muscatel Avenue (south side of Garvey Avenue) or City limit (north side of Garvey Avenue). 7. Revise Policy 5.1 to focus Garvey Avenue revitalization efforts to east of the SCE easement. 8. Revise Policy 5.2 to focus on revitalization of the San Gabriel Boulevard corridor, south of Hellman Avenue to Park Street and then again south of the SCE easement to Rush Street. 9. Add zoning district categories to correspond to new High Intensity Commercial designation. 10. Add Residential/Commercial - Mixed Use Development Overlay zone standards to correspond to the Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial Designation and the Mixed-Use High Density Residential/Commercial Designation. 11. Add Medium Commercial (C-3) to the Mixed-Use High Density Residential/Commercial Designation. 12. Add Planned Development (P-D), Light Manufacturing (M-1) and Medium Commercial (C-3) zone districts to correspond to Mixed-Use Industrial designation. 13. Revise land use allocations in Table 2-5 Land Use and Population Estimates for General Plan Buildout to reflect revisions to land use categories and land use policy map. Total allocation for housing has been reduced by 4,800 potential dwelling units, mostly through reduction in allocations within the mixed use residential/commercial designations. The total allocation for non-residential development has decreased by 4,090,000 potential square feet. 14. Revise totals in Table 2-7 Land Use and Population - 2009 Conditions and General Plan to reflect revisions to land use categories and land use policy map Rosemead General Plan EIR Addendum 6 April 13, 2010 and the estimated long range increases in residential population and nonresidential development. As a result, the updated General Plan now provides a lower population capacity of approximately 61,480, a reduction of 18,906 from the adopted Plan. Circulation 1. Revise exhibits displaying long range intersection and roadway levels of service to correspond to results of the revised traffic study. 2. Revise Table 3-5 Identified Intersection Approach Improvements and Table 3-6 Identified Roadway Segment Improvements, to correspond to results of the revised traffic study. 3. Remove Policy 1.7 that would require specific assessment and mitigation of impacts to the intersection of Del Mar and Garvey Avenue in conjunction with future mixed use projects, since there are now fewer locations that are designated for higher intensity mixed use development. Resource Management 1. Add text .to specifically identify greenspace, water resources, air quality and mineral resources as the focus of conservation strategies. 2. Update current population to 2008, as reported by the California Department of Finance, and revise parkland requirements accordingly, pursuant to National Parks and Recreation Association and Southern California Association of Governments guidelines. 3. Specify public art requirements to apply in civic, mixed use and commercial areas. 4. Change Implementation Action 1.1 to create a Parks, Recreation, and General Facilities Master Plan to guide development and management of the City's parks and recreation system for the next 15 years. 5. Clarify Action 2.3 to specify a mixture of tree types in the City's street tree program, to minimize opportunity for disease or blight. 6. Expand Action 4.14 to include consideration of public educational efforts to identify options for greenhouse gas reduction through reduced auto usage, for example, through trip reduction/linkage, biking and walking, vehicle performance and efficiency, low or zero emissions vehicles, and car/ride sharing. Public Safety 1. Add reference to California Assembly Bill 162, which requires a General Plan to identify existing and planned development in flood hazard zones, including structures, roads, utilities and essential public facilities. References to related map exhibits in the Land Use, Public Resources and Public Safety Element that address flood hazards have also been added. 2. Strengthen Policy 1.3 regarding minimizing flood risks through careful consideration of new development proposals in flood-prone areas, and through Rosemead General Plan EIR Addendum 7 April 13, 2010 EXHIBIT: CHANGES TO LAND USE POLICY PLAN Rpj!Ge:Mfl PAID If aA 4kLLp0.nwi PYn ImON.)s M1gafN Y.nwal PIY~ IaM VK lw 0.m[/b Canm.Nal ® YuN Vx'. W.6n1uYLmnwvY(lli3pYgbfnwKiul - YiNYr. R.a6nuTCbmmrtl116.V 4'xlbCamrdR 0 YvW L'x'. R.WevYKmmeN PI+! gtlxl b Ibyi M W ®YaNVY'.R..bmYacwnKVY1~4✓xlb Np]0 ry WKUx'. Wr>n1uRCmA4Y PI~l bJxlbla~D.n.p Yi.C VY:R.sY.wrKwmK.iY IV~dXf 6LK 0wary Q YvW VY: R..4enlYCmmweL Plat 4YxIb Y.Wm 0.wi! Q YvK VY'. R.+YmlulCxYwrt+Y1~J 4Jxlb WQUn Dnw! ® ].YK:ahaR.K..N ®r.Y P JpN lOW Exhibit: Proposed Land Use Changes City d Rox M "2.A10 Q WKllb'.R.W.riIYCYnnxtlY lJlal WIYIb WNVK.PW.tYKYmwbul _ WN VY:R.YLnWCennYel X6.0 Y'xlbYi.N VY.bbe~ vY Q MJ'Ye Mn.ry wbN VK R.WwwY4mm'tlrl l]p AJa4 Q WNUr'.R.J4xKLCNm.KU1J1Al bJx1416K VK'. R.YA R'aLCanmeoll(NIMYI - NW [x{ryb Ys. Vu'. R.uM9aYCrmmral (L CWxI Q' WNYK'R.WM4NCbnnxaL(]IJl Wx14 WNVK R.vAgy.C4nMbY1l00/xl Q WN Vr. RnbKKVLaw~waYP1N N/xlb W.0 Vr R. YY~eN 1]! b/x) ® WN VY:R.uNnbVCamr.rdYPlaJ Yls141lvfbwhVYmY.i+l Rosemead General Plan EIR Addendum 8 April 13, 2010 cooperative relationships with other public agencies who have responsibility for flood protection. 3. Add Actions 1.27 to 1.30 to specify additional standard City staff procedures to ensure thorough review of proposals that may be in a flood-prone area, maintain up-to-date mapping of flood hazards and maintain communications with federal, state, and regional agencies with responsibility over flood protection. Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental effects of the proposed general plan revisions are assessed in terms of whether the impacts would be substantially different from and/or more severe than the impacts identified for the 2008 GP EIR. Each impact topic addressed in the 2008 GP EIR is discussed below. Aesthetics Proposed changes in land use planning policies would not increase building intensity standards in any of the affected areas, compared to the adopted Plan standards; therefore, aesthetic impacts related to building height and bulk would be similar to and no worse than the impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Less land area is now designated for medium to high density residential development in mixed-use settings; therefore, the updated Plan would result in less of a residential character in some mixed use areas, compared to the adopted Plan. Development standards and project review requirements to ensure quality and character of design would not be affected; therefore, aesthetic impacts involving new development and effects on the quality and character of the site and surroundings would be similar to and no worse than the impacts identified in the GP EIR. No changes in any lighting sources or lighting regulations are proposed, thus, the updated Plan would result in no changes in potential lighting impacts. Air Quality No new sources of air pollutant emissions would occur as a result of the proposed Plan revisions; therefore, potential impacts would be no worse and no additional control measures would be warranted beyond than those identified for the adopted Plan. Total traffic generated within the Planning area would be lower under the proposed Plan; therefore, total vehicular emissions would be lower than estimated for the adopted Plan. Air quality impacts would be similar to, and in some cases less than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Biological Resources All of the updated land use policies affect land in the city's already urbanized area, along developed corridors. There are no sensitive biological resources in these areas; therefore, no impacts to biological resources would occur due to the updated Land Use Element. Changes in vehicular trip volumes and distributions associated with the Land Use Element revisions would have no effect on any biological resources. Revisions to the Rosemead General Plan EIR Addendum 9 April 13, 2010 Public Safety Element pertain to documentation of flood hazards and to ongoing flood risk management programs. These changes would not affect the use of any land areas that support an important biological resource. Proposed revisions to require greater variety in the City's street tree palette are expected to reduce potential problems of disease and blight, which could also have a positive effect on the biological and aesthetic values of the street trees. Biological resource impacts would be similar to, and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Geology and Soils Proposed Land Use Element revisions would result in a decrease in development potential for non-residential uses and a reduced potential increase in housing and residential population. This would mean that over the long term, the land use plan revisions would result in fewer habitable structures that could be affected by local geological hazards and soils constraints. These changes would have no effect on any existing geology/soils constraints or any related regulations governing design and construction of structures that could be affected by such constraints. Geology and soils impacts would be similar to, and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed Land Use Element revisions would allow for less non-residential development and less residential development when compared to the adopted plan; therefore, it is anticipated that the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes generally associated with commercial and industrial activities would decrease as a result of the General Plan Amendment. The primary cause for the decrease in non- residential development is the substantial conversion of Mixed-Use land uses (that support floor area ratios (FAR) of 1.6 to 2.0) to Commercial and High-Intensity Commercial land uses (that supports a reduced FAR of 0.35). No new kinds of industrial or commercial uses would be allowed that could involve handling of higher volumes or more dangerous kinds of hazardous substances/wastes. All existing federal, state, county and local regulations governing the storage, transport, use, generation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes will continue to apply. Revisions to the Circulation Element would not affect any routes where hazardous materials can be transported, and would have no impacts involving hazards and hazardous materials. Revisions to the Resource Management and Public Safety Elements would have no effect on how land is assessed for possible environmental contamination or how hazardous substances/wastes are managed. Potential impacts involving hazards and hazardous materials would be similar to, and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Potential impacts involving hazards and hazardous materials would be similar to, and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Rosemead General Plan EIR Addendum 10 April 13, 2010 Hydrology and Water Quality Proposed revisions to the Land Use Element would not change any land use policies related to sites affected by flood hazards. No new types of land uses would be allowed that could have a more adverse effect on surface and ground water quality or supplies. No regulations or project review procedures related to storm drainage and water quality controls would be affected by any of the proposed General Plan revisions. Proposed revisions in the Public Safety Element would actually increase the level of scrutiny of future development proposals, with respect to flood hazards and mitigation thereof. Hydrology and water quality impacts would be similar to and no worse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Land Use and Planning All of the proposed General Plan revisions affect land in already developed areas, along well-established corridors. No changes to the established physical structure of any part of the community would be required to implement the proposed refinements to land use policies. There is no land in the City of Rosemead that is governed by some form of habitat conservation plan or any other kind of conservation plan; therefore, the updated Plan elements would have no effect on such plans. Proposed changes in mixed use areas are consistent with regional planning strategies to facilitate future growth in established urban areas and in nodes of intensity that can link to transit opportunities. Land use and planning impacts would be similar to and no more adverse than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Noise Proposed General Plan revisions would not allow for any new or more intensive noise sources, and would not relax or otherwise affect any policies, standards, regulations or plan review procedures related to noise control and mitigation. Since traffic volumes in all nine traffic analysis zones would decline, compared to the adopted Plan, roadway noise levels are not expected to be any higher than was estimated for the adopted Plan. Noise impacts would be similar to and possibly less than, the level of impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Population and Housing Proposed Land Use Element revisions would decrease total residential capacity by approximately 5,444 housing units and 18,906 residents and would reduce total non- residential development capacity by approximately 4,090,000 square feet. Total long- term residential growth, therefore, would be lower and total economic growth in terns of potential job base and business property values would decrease, compared to the adopted Rosemead General Plan EIR Addendum l1 April 13, 2010 Plan. No land is being re-designated to allow development which was formerly targeted for some conservation or resource management or extraction purpose. No changes to any supporting infrastructure systems are proposed, therefore, there would be no direct growth inducing effects in terms of removing a physical obstacle to growth. Public Services Demand for public services related to residential population would be reduced, because the updated Plan would reduce the City's residential capacity, as noted above. No physical environmental impacts to alter, expand or build new public facilities, therefore, would occur. Since future commercial, industrial and other non-residential development would occur in the City's already urbanized areas, where law enforcement, public safety and fire protection services are already available, no additional facilities associated with those services would be required to maintain sufficient response times. Public services impacts would be similar to and no worse than the level of impact identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Recreation Since the total potential residential capacity in the updated Plan would be lower than in the adopted Plan, demand for parkland and impacts to existing parks and recreation resources would be reduced. The increased development potential for non-residential land uses is not expected to result in a significant impact involving the demand for parkland or use of existing parks and recreation resources, since those resources are enjoyed primarily and sometimes exclusively, by local residents. Recreation impacts would be similar to and possibly less than the level of impact identified in the 2008 GP EIR. Transportation and Traffic Traffic impacts associated with the proposed changes in land use plan policies were assessed by KOA Corporation, based on the traffic impact analysis they completed for the 2008 General Plan. Trip generation for each of the nine traffic analysis zones (TAZ) was recalculated and distributed to the 28 study area intersections, to determine whether long range congestion impacts during the AM and PM peak hours would differ substantially from the findings of the previous traffic impact analysis. Overall, the updated traffic study determined that the proposed Land Use Plan revisions would not result in any new significant intersection impacts and also would not worsen projected LOS at any intersection that was previously projected to have a significant impact. Specific findings include: • Trip generation for the nine TAZs would change as follows: Rosemead General Plan EIR Addendum 12 April 13, 2010 o AM Peak - Residential trips would increase in four to the TAZs, where medium and high residential densities are to be focused, and non- residential trips would decrease in eight of the nine TAZs. o PM Peak - Residential trips would increase in four of the TAZs, where medium and high residential densities are to be focused, and non- residential trips would decrease in all nine TAZ. • Eight intersections impacted in the AM peak hour under the 2008 General Plan would continue to have significant peak hour impacts with the proposed Plan revisions • 11 intersections impacted in the PM peak hour under the 2008 General Plan would continue to have significant impacts with the proposed Plan revisions • Significant AM peak hour congestion impacts that were forecast for the 2008 Plan would be reduced to less than significant at five intersections with the proposed Plan • The intersection of San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue would be significantly impacted in the AM Peak hour, but not in the PM peak hour under the revised Plan. • Significant impacts were not forecast for the 2008 Plan or the proposed Plan revisions for 15 intersections during the AM peak hour and at eight intersections during the PM peak hour • Long-range daily traffic volumes on four roadway segments are projected to exceed desired volume/capacity ratios, compared to 15 with the adopted Plan Utilities and Service Systems Total residential demand for water supply and wastewater collection and treatment systems would be lower and total residential solid waste disposal requirements would be lower because the total residential capacity would be reduced by approximately 5,444 housing units. With a non-residential development potential of approximately 4,090,000 less square feet, water demand, wastewater collection and treatment needs, and solid waste disposal requirements from commercial and industrial uses would probably be higher than with the adopted Plan. Solid waste disposal impacts from the Rosemead planning area would be cumulatively considerable, due to anticipated near-term closures of the two landfills that currently receive a large majority of the City's solid wastes. This impact is consistent with the findings of the 2008 GP EIR for the adopted Plan. Impacts on the local and regional storm drainage network would be about the same for the adopted Plan or the updated Plan, since the planning area is already mostly developed and a substantial increase in impervious surface area that generates runoff would not occur. Rosemead General Plan EIR Addendum 13 April 13, 2010 Impacts to the Utilities and Services systems would be similar to the impacts identified in the 2008 GP EIR, and would not result in any new significant impacts. Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts Proposed General Plan revisions involving site-specific land use designations would have no effect on land outside of Rosemead and would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with the use of land, i.e. aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils constraints, mineral resources, or noise. Since traffic volumes throughout the planning area are projected to decline, compared to the volumes projected for the adopted Plan, there would be no cumulatively considerable traffic congestion impacts or traffic-related air quality or noise impacts due to the proposed General Plan revisions. Proposed changes to the Land Use Plan would change the ultimate mix ofjobs/housing opportunities in the planning area, i.e., more weighted with employment growth than residential growth. This is not expected to affect the rates of residential or employment growth in Rosemead, however, and no conflicts with regional growth forecasts are anticipated. Proposed revisions to the Resource Management Element could reduce the level of potential cumulative effects on parks and recreation resources inside and outside of Rosemead, to the extent that the proposed recreation master plan program is successful. As noted in the preceding discussion under Utilities and Service Systems, solid waste disposal impacts from the Rosemead planning area would be cumulatively considerable, due to anticipated near-term closures of the two landfills that currently receive a large majority of the City's solid wastes. This impact is consistent with the findings of the 2008 GP EIR for the adopted Plan. Additional residential and non-residential growth is desired and being planned for in the adopted Plan as well as the updated Plan. The proposed Plan would establish lower limits of total non-residential growth and residential growth. No revisions to the general Plan are proposed that would have a direct growth inducing effect, in terms of expanding utilities and transportation infrastructure into undeveloped areas or designation of any open land for development that was previously designated for conservation, resource management, open space or recreation purposes. Rosemead General Plan EIR Addendum 14 April 13, 2010 5287 ! 36 5287 37 ~ O J ~Z .I( ~1Z Z) m> 52J1!4 ~ > p u p > • 2t TRAC1 N0,4741 M.8.50.52 1 PARCEL MAP - P. M.137-41.42 < nv :rAiH l r F Ii15 ^:.`8,11'.1, a IC EXHIBIT G Y WVE7 AVE. ; 5390 1 j YJ151;='116' 9 Ac:lwis O u11 2001 xat:ttAa¢, is. » A J4 " 'Itu- f' Kkrx~m+K Lh 1 1 ~.-Jr^ V' JAI1~!O r ~ urn~N{N~'xl L-j AVE., Q z BGERNEPT ¢030 3215 vtnva+ ~Ag y r AHfi^ . I I 7 ~ f :rxr. . . no I ~7 1 1 1 ~ J w- ~ I I ~ r ~ b `w;^.~Pr. `.:>•uasP~~.'~ V , 4s m V d s c 1 e n4 W f1~!12 a 7 lyl 1 a' p (4 ' SK. , 91, `1 'U VJ © V 1 C' ~yl 5"..:. 0 P 53 mv, 02 `O" •Nr4i^ 1 Karl Afw,., . i J 1 rr-.ca-+. 'I - f~.LfA/ N~a 7 Project;Arga 2 r J Bar Lurriben Sits a ~.1 I P - n n I. ad L.=.-.-..... S. IAXN _ , Ifp.1 Ll1. 1Cry'N•. G YUjRi-•_.JL a 9: WALNUT kOVE' ` - J I a~` m 1 I~ ~tl Uf df Wi 52711 11 'f 16 ae. ^ ROSEMEAD M,B,21.114-115 . tau 8212 12 TRACT NO . 5213 M.B.97-28-30 _ . DETAIL TRACT 40. 12549 M, 0.238-36-37 N65CAL2 TRACT NO. 26273 M. B. 672-3-4 FDR ma aw. 2L: PARCEL MAP P. M. 239. 6 :1999,( Nr •../5259095 9AP:. _ DOU.0 OF L05 ANOEI a WT, e u e s City of Rosemead Memorandum To: Honorable Chairwoman and Planning Commissioners Prepared by: Sheri Bermejo, Principal Planner Submitted bn Wong, Community Development Director Date: March 1, 2010 RE: Public Responses on General Plan Amendment 09-01. The Planning Division has received two (2) letters from the public regarding their concerns on General Plan Amendment 09-01. The letters are from the following: • Anne C. Lieu and Michael P. Lieu • Metodo Investments, LLC Copies of the letters are attached with this memo. The Planning Commission should consider these responses during the review of the General Plan. EXHIBIT I 3050 Muscatel Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 (626) 280-8930 February 23, 2010 City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 Re: Notice of public hearing, March 1, 2010 Dear Rosemead Planning Commission, We refer to your Notice of Public Hearing Before the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead on March 1, 2010 regarding the City's General Plan Amendment which will directly affect the properties we own at 7951 Garvey Avenue. At this stage there is very little information available to digest, however we would like to raise the following general concerns and issues in writing so they can be noted and considered: The properties we own are currently trading as a water filter store, cell phone store and tobacco store respectively. Therefore we believe they are offering a necessary and complementary service to the Rosemead community and should not be treated in the same breath as other less desirable businesses that the City is trying to eliminate. In common to normal business practices, we have signed tong term lease contracts with each individual store tenants. Since the contracts are legally binding, any break of contract due to the General Plan before the end of lease term would result in claims against us the property owner that need to be addressed. We have retired and the rent from these properties is our primary source of income, since we were self employed with a very small pension prior to retirement Therefore if our properties were to be purchased by the City, we must be assured that both our level of income from the properties, and the capital worth of the properties themselves are fully taken into account Separately we have read news that the City has reinstated the power of eminent domain to forcefully repurchase properties at below market value, even though it was quoted that the city did not plan to ever use it. We feel extremely threatened by this approach as it will give the City an unfair power and would strongly urge the City not to use this option, and if possible to reconsider the entire eminent domain policy itself. Yours sincerely, Anne C. Lieu Property Owner Michael P. Lieu Property Owner 20/02 '10 FRI 12:55 FAX r~f Overseas Chinese Hotel WENZHOU - **fr* * , 61 ~s p ~Q 9) *77° 8001 v F c~, 3 67 ~q )4 oz-al i alt~ 1 Xi~e Sc+'ecS Wcazhou, 2hcj img Chine 325000 $N%Btralm*1.i'if in 14} Y'ELed M;86.577-88088888 YAXJ¢'= 6-577-88082888 ~inp~//www.och.v>.cam C-uteil:hctclPnchw 20/02 '10 FRI 12:55 FAX `V Overseas Chinese Hotel pW~ENZHOU g- - LayrlyEL Y{ l~ ~ ~ W 9, ~ru, QJ 002 T" r t4: P.S?. SDO 1. ~ > J s 1€ 7~~ - o rS q~ 0949Y~+1 ili 1'd 7~bv~7 o-t-yc No.l Xinhe 9tccc; Wcnzhon, 2hejiao6 CM+na 323000 T2L$j"j~:R6577-860889RR FAX(§TF:B6-377-98082889 Hrry://www.oehwz.com F.•meil:hat<Imuchwz.com ,C~l/1 c --p 4j, ~~4`V' ~ Craig Lawson & Co., LLC Land Use Consultants April 5, 2010 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 RE: General Plan Amendment 09-01 City Council Meeting on April 13, 2010 Land Use Designation Change Auto Auction Site - 8001 Garvey Avenue Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: I am writing on behalf of Metodo Investments, LLC, the new property owner of the former Auto Auction site ("project site") referenced above. Metodo Investments would like to develop the 16-acre site with a feasible project that brings benefits to the entire community. The project site is one of the last large vacant properties in the City of Rosemead which offers the opportunity to create a transformative development that will provide good urban design and significant revenue for the City, land uses and amenities desired by the community and a financially successful project for my client. At this time, my client would like the City Council to defer consideration of the General Plan Amendment for the project site so that the owner and project team can work with staff and evaluate various development possibilities before the final general plan land use category for the project site is enacted. The project team needs more time to study the project site's highest and best use that also provides the maximum revenue to the City from sales tax and transient occupancy tax (TOT). The client only purchased the property in February of 2010 and is about to begin the design phase. The recently assembled project team plans to work closely with the appropriate members of the City by meeting regularly at various milestones of design development. The currently proposed General Plan Amendment reduces the project site's potential FAR from 2.0 (Mixed Use Commercial) down to a 0.35 FAR (High Intensity Commercial), a decrease of over 80% in FAR, and eliminates the ability to include residential uses. These changes will preclude all development of the 1 8758 Venice Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90034 (310) 838-2400 Phone (310) 838-2424 Fax__ EXHIBIT J project site. Further, reducing the FAR to such a low level will also reduce the City's possible sales tax revenue even, if the property owner can develop a project under such restrictions. The value of the property and the project site's potential to generate sales tax are linked to the maximum FAR. Since the City has not enacted the High Intensity Commercial development standards, the property owner also cannot prepare a project proposal because the owner does not know the types of development that will be permitted. Another reason to delay action on the General Plan Amendment with respect to this site is to provide flexibility to the property owner considering the current economic climate. The current economic downturn has led to dramatic decrease in investment, lending and construction of new developments. It has also resulted in the failure of many large and well established retail and commercial businesses. In this context, a land use designation change that reduces the number of potential uses and size of the project will limit the types of projects allowed and will further hinder development. Having just purchased the property, my client has no plans to develop the project in the immediate future. This, combined with the existing moratorium covering the property, assures that the property owner will not attempt to develop a mixed use project before the City has time to institute new regulations. We understand that the City would like to repeal the current moratorium. The City Council can exclude the project site from any repeal of the moratorium. Thus, the City would have assurances that the owner could not immediately apply for approval of a project under the current General Plan standards even if the City Council defers action on the current proposed amendment as applied to this parcel. Deferring the land use designation change for this parcel will provide an opportunity for the property owner to submit preliminary conceptual designs for a project with multiple uses. The project team will study the feasibility for various types of project schemes. In addition, delaying the change in land use designation for this parcel will avoid the need for the City Council to change the designation of the parcel yet again if the City Council finds that a different type of development would be acceptable or agrees that the FAR included with the proposed designation is too low. We believe it would be preferable to delay making a final determination on the land use designation than to go through the process again. We understand that one of the reasons for the timing of the General Plan Amendment is the desire to accommodate development plans for other parcels. Deferring my client's parcel from this amendment will in no way delay approval of the changes for the other parcels. 8758 Venice Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90034 (310) 838-2400 Phone (310) 838-2424 Fax 2 In order for a development to pencil out, we believe the site must have an FAR range from a 1.6 to 2.0. Allowing this type of flexibility will enable the City to accomplish Strategy 15 listed in the City of Rosemead Strategic Plan for 2010 which aims to "increase revenues to the general fund from sales tax and transient occupancy tax (TOT)." One of the action items for Strategy 15 specifically mentions the Auto Auction Site as a property for which the Community Development Department should facilitate commercial development. Without FAR flexibility, the project site may remain vacant for many years which eliminates a new source of sales tax revenue for the City. Delaying action on the General Plan will permit the client an opportunity to work with staff and submit alternative development plans showing different FAR's before the City Council establishes a final FAR. For all of these reasons, I request the following: 1. Defer my client's parcel from the pending land use designation change that is part of the current General Plan Amendment; or 2. Direct staff to modify the General Plan Amendment to permit development of the site with an FAR of 0.35, as is currently proposed, but permit the FAR to be modified pursuant to adoption of a Specific Plan. This approach would not automatically allow a greater FAR, but would permit such a development to be approved through a detailed series of reviews without the need to again amend the General Plan. Finally, although my client fully intends to work with the City and has no intention to challenge the decision of the City Council on the General Plan Amendment, the City's notice specifically provides that my client will waive any rights that are not raised in the current proceedings. Thus, we need to point out that there are impacts of the General Plan Amendment that we do not believe have been fully evaluated and mitigated as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Specifically, we do not believe the potential significant impacts of the General Plan Amendment on other land uses in the City, on traffic and circulation in the City, air quality and other public services and resources have been adequately addressed. The Planning Commission did not have any evidence, in the form of an Addendum, Supplement or Subsequent EIR, upon which it could make a recommendation to the City Council that the General Plan Amendment would not have a potentially significant environmental impact to the City Council. Lastly, substantial evidence is not presented to make findings under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that no additional environmental review, beyond reliance on the 2008 General Plan EIR, is required. 3 8758 Venice Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90034 (310) 838-2400 Phone (310) 838-2424 Fax In closing, my client and the project team will work closely with staff and the City Council to determine the best uses for the site, develop a well designed project with various complementary uses that generate a significant amount of revenue for the City and provide the community with amenities, jobs and services. Thank you for considering my client's requests. Sincerely, Andie Adame Senior Project Manager CC: Vivian Liu, Client Simon Lee, Project Architect Steve Dorsey, Project Attorney Gloria Molleda, City of Rosemead City Clerk 4 8758 Venice Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90034 (310) 838-2400 Phone (310) 838-2424 Fax EXHIBIT K -Q 5 "e9 City of Rosemead FINAL EIR FOR ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE SCH#2007111090 Certified: October 14, 2008 Resolution 2008-66 City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91170 626.288.6671 r+ t.s Rosemead General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Errata The adopted Rosemead General Plan land use and population buildout statistics and land use map, shown below, vary from those presented in the Draft Environmental Impact and Final Environmental Impact Report due to three causes: Edison right-of-way parcels' designation is revised from public facilities to commercial as a result of a technical correction; Edison right-of-way parcels' designation is revised from open space/natural resources to Public Facilities as a result of a technical correction; and Three Nevada Avenue parcels' designation is revised from Mixed Use: High Density Residential to Low Density Residential as a result of Rosemead City Council direction. The anticipated environmental impacts as a result of these designation changes are negligible and do not substantively alter the environment impact analyses, their conclusions, nor their findings as discussed in the Rosemead General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Land Use and Population Estimates for General Plan Buildout Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Potential General Plan Land Use Net Density/ Dwelling Population Square Category Acres Intensity a Units b Feet LDR Low Density Residential 957 7.0 DU/AC -6,696 -25,955 0 Medium Density 566 8.5 DU/AC 4,810 18,644 0 MDR Residential HDR Hi h Density Residential 97 19.8 DU/AC 1,917 7,431 0 C Commercial 62 0.33 FAR 0 0 880,000 OLI Office/Li ht Industrial 132 0.42 FAR 0 0 2,400,000 Mixed Use- 25.0 DU/AC; MRC Residential/Commercial 142 1.60 FAR 1,769 6,858 4,930,000 c Mixed Use-High Density 36.0 DU/AC; MHRC Residential/ Commercial 220 2.00 FAR 5,546 21,498 5,750,000 d MIC Mixed Use- 9 1.00 FAR 0 0 390,000 Industrial/Commercial PF Public Facilities 383 N/A 0 0 0 OS Open Space/Natural 83 N/A 0 0 0 Resources CEM Cemetery 4 N/A 0 0 0 Total 2,654 20,738 80,385 14,350,000 Notes: a) DU/AC: Dwelling Unit Per Acre, FAR: Floor Area Ratio. b) Population is estimated based on an average household size of 3.997 persons per household and a vacancy rate of 3.02% according to the 2007 California Department of Finance, Demographic Unit. c) Mixed Use-Residential/Commercial category assumes 50% residential and 50% commercial mix. d) Mixed Use-High Density Residential/Commercial category assumes 70% residential and 30% commercial mix. Table of Contents Note to Reader: The Final EIR consists of both the Draft EIR and this document. The Draft EIR is published under separate cover and is available at City Hall and the Rosemead Public Library. The Draft EIR Table of Contents is included here for reference only. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Page 1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1-1 2.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................2-1 3.0 Project Description ..............................................................................................................3-1 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis .........................................................................................4-1 5.0 Alternatives ..........................................................................................................................5-1 6.0 Analysis of Long-Term Effects ...........................................................................................6-1 7.0 References ...........................................................................................................................7-1 Appendices A Notice of Preparation/Initial Study B Notice of Preparation Comment Letters C Air Quality Study D Noise Study E Traffic Study FINAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Page 8.0 Executive Summary (Revised) ...........................................................................................8-1 9.0 Response to Comments on Draft EIR and Comment Letters .........................................9-1 Appendices F California State Clearinghouse Compliance Letter Rosemead General Plan TOC-i Final Program Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents List of Tables Executive Summary Table 8-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 8-9 Final Program Environmental Impact Report TOC-ii Rosemead General Plan 8.0 Executive Summary The Final EIR consists of both the Draft EIR and this document. The Draft EIR, published July 2008, is under separate cover and is available at City Hall and the Rosemead Public Library. This Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) published by the Public Resources Agency of the State of California (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The City of Rosemead is the lead agency for this Program EIR, as defined in Section 21067 of CEQA. The Project The proposed project analyzed in this Program EIR is the adoption and long-term implementation of a comprehensive update of the City of Rosemead General Plan. The project also includes revisions to the City's Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code) that will be pursued to implement General Plan policy. This Program EIR provides a program-level assessment of the general environmental impacts resulting from development pursuant to land use policy and implementation of the goals and policies set forth in all chapters of the updated General Plan, and the long-term implementation of the revised Zoning Code. Project Location The City of Rosemead is located in the San Gabriel Valley, approximately 11 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. It is bordered by the cities of Monterey Park and San Gabriel to the west, El Monte to the east, South El Monte to the southeast, Temple City to the north, and Montebello to the south. Primary vehicle routes serving Rosemead include Interstate 10 (San Bernardino Freeway), which bisects the City, and State Highway 60 (Pomona Freeway), which runs along the southern City boundary. Major roadways serving the City include Rosemead Boulevard (State Highway 19), Garvey Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard, and Valley Boulevard. The Rosemead General Plan Planning Area consists of properties contained within the City's corporate limits. The entire Planning Area encompasses 5.5 square miles, with approximately 5.2 square miles within the corporate limits and .3 square miles within the sphere of influence. The sphere of influence includes properties in portions of unincorporated Los Angeles County adjacent to the City. Purpose and Objectives of the General Plan The General Plan establishes a comprehensive, long-term vision for Rosemead to guide planning decisions and physical development over a 20-year period. The principle goals set forth in the General Plan include the following: • Enhance the commercial areas along key corridors, and most specifically Garvey Avenue and Valley Boulevard; • Create an economically viable downtown that blends retail, office, and residential uses in a walkable, attractive setting; Rosemead General Plan 8-1 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Executive Summa • Enhance parks and recreational space in underserved neighborhoods; • Accommodate the demand for quality mixed-use development that can contribute to commercial growth and enhance opportunities for higher-density residential development; • Protect homeowner investments and the availability of well-maintained, relatively affordable housing units; and • Minimize the impact of traffic associated with growth within the San Gabriel Valley and broader region. The General Plan is divided into five chapters that contain goals and policies focused on achieving the City's objectives. The chapters and key features of each are as follows: Land Use The Land Use Element, using text and illustrations, identifies the physical form of Rosemead and how land will be used over time. This element sets forth the location, type, and intensity of development, and establishes the desired mix and relationship between uses. Land use designations identify the types and nature of development permitted throughout the planning area. The goals and policies contained in the element provide guidance to enhancing and maintaining existing residential neighborhoods, encouraging new housing opportunities, accommodating a variety of commercial and industrial uses, and revitalizing underperforming commercial corridors. Circulation The Circulation Element guides the enhancement of the local circulation system to support planned growth, enhance safety, and encourage transit use. This Element addresses focused improvements to the roadway system that will be appropriate to accommodate local mobility and public safety needs and to enhance connections to adjacent communities. The Element identifies where comprehensive intersection improvements will be needed to maintain acceptable service levels, as well as other measures to ease traffic flow. Other circulation issues addressed include a bicycle master plan and j truck routes. The Circulation Element includes five classifications of roadways: Freeway, Major Arterial, Minor i I Arterial, Collector, and Local. Each classification is designed for a certain purpose and capacity. Key U transportation goals in the Circulation Element include the maintenance of efficient vehicular and pedestrian movement and the protection of residential areas from commercial and industrial traffic. Resource Management , The Resource Management Element is a combination of the State mandated Open Space and Conservation elements. In terms of open space, the project focuses on existing parks and recreational facilities and goals for providing additional park and open space areas. The City currently has 43.25 acres of park and recreational areas. Water and air quality, energy conservation, global climate change, and mineral resources are addressed in the conservation portion of the Resource Management Element. Due to the semi-arid nature of the plan area, the project highlights the need for water conservation. Additionally, groundwater in the area is partially contaminated; therefore the element provides goals to prevent continued contamination. The project recognizes that air quality is a regional problem and that each Final Program Environmental Impact Report 8-2 Rosemead General Plan Executive Summa jurisdiction has a responsibility in contributing to cleaner air. This Element includes goals to integrate air quality planning into City development efforts and to support alternative modes of transportation. The plan also recognizes the link between air quality and energy conservation and the project presents goals to promote energy conservation. Finally, the Element considers mineral resources and indicates that the built out nature of the City and the lack of State designated Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) prevents the extraction of minerals from within the plan area. Public Safety The Public Safety Element establishes policies to minimize the potential danger to the community from natural and human-caused hazards. The Element includes discussion of those features within or near Rosemead that represent a potential danger to the residents, structures, public facilities, and infrastructure. Natural hazards include earthquakes and flooding. Human-caused hazards include fires and the discharge of hazardous materials. The Element also provides goals and policies supporting law enforcement and emergency response services. Noise The Noise Element focuses on minimizing community noise by identifying its sources and assessing alternative methods to reduce impacts. The Element identifies current noise levels in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level scale (CNEL). The Element identifies the existing noise environment and the projected noise environment in 2025. Goals and policies focus on the protection of sensitive land uses from excessive noise and the reduction of noise from transportation sources. Housing Element Although not included in the comprehensive draft General Plan circulating for public review, the City has initiated an update of the Housing Element to address housing planning for the 2008-2014 Housing Element cycle for the region (which is the six-county region of the Southern California Association of Governments, or SCAG). Housing Element adoption may occur subsequent to adoption of the comprehensive General Plan update. Housing Element policy will reflect land use policy, meaning that the Housing Element will identify sites for future housing opportunities consistent with the Land Use Policy Map in the Land Use Element necessary to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA, and otherwise meet City housing goals. To the extent housing programs are known at the time of preparation of the General Plan and Zoning Code Program EIR, those programs will be addressed in the EIR. Required Actions This Program EIR has been prepared to address the following actions by the City and others to adopt and implement the Rosemead General Plan: Responsible Agency Rosemead City Council Rosemead Planning Commission Action Adoption of the General Plan Adoption of any ordinances, . guidelines, programs, or other mechanisms that implement General Plan policy Recommendation to City Council to adopt the General Plan Recommendation to City Council to adopt any ordinances, guidelines, programs, or other Rosemead General Plan 8-3 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Executive Su mechanisms that implement General Plan policy Other City Commissions Adoption of ordinances, guidelines, programs, or other actions that implement the General Plan policy City Departments Adoption of programs or other actions that implement the General Plan and General Plan policy Others as necessary Adoption of plans or programs tangential to the Rosemead General Plan Significant, Unavoidable Environmental Impacts Associated with the Project Adoption and long-term implementation of the Rosemead General Plan will result in the following significant, unavoidable environmental effects: Transportation Development pursuant to General Plan policy could increase traffic volumes throughout the City. Future traffic volumes associated with ambient growth and potential future development in the City of Rosemead pursuant to the General Plan are expected to result in average daily volume that exceeds the existing and planned roadway and intersection capacity in multiple locations throughout the City. The General Plan recommends a variety of improvements to improve levels of service. Implementation of the physical improvements will result in the removal of significant impacts at most study intersections, with the exception of eight intersections. The impact at these intersections at the project-level is considered significant and unavoidable. While implementation of policies in the General Plan may reduce the cumulative transportation/traffic impact to some extent, traffic generated by new development in Rosemead and surrounding communities over the next 20 years will continue to contribute to overall traffic congestion in the region. Therefore, cumulative impacts will be significant and unavoidable. J Air Quality Air pollutant emissions associated with new vehicle trips and stationary sources will result in emissions levels that exceed the thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for all pollutant levels, although the cumulative emissions of CO, VOG, and NO, are projected to decrease relative to current levels. Despite efforts on the part of the City to reduce J vehicle trips - including expanding mixed-use land use areas and a variety of goals, policies, and implementation actions contained in the General Plan - and its participation in regional efforts to improve air quality, impact relative to these pollutants will be significant and unavoidable. The General Plan update also includes goals, policies, and implementation actions that will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the life of the project. The General Plan includes design features that are anticipated to reduce GHG emissions; as such impacts associated with increases in GHG emissions will be less than significant. Population and Housing The General Plan has the potential to result in a substantial population and housing unit increase in comparison to population and housing growth projections at the local, sub-regional, and regional Final Program Environmental Impact Report 8-4 Rosemead General Plan Executive Summary levels. Mitigation measures are included to assist with coordination with regional policy makers, however, the measures are not able to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Recreation Both the current and proposed General Plans note that the National Parks and Recreation Association (NPRA) recommends 2.5 acres of parkland per person and that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) recommends 4 acres per person. The City currently provides 0.75 acres per person and therefore has not yet met its goal of one acre per 1,000 people. The proposed General Plan update anticipates an increase in population and coupled with the lack of available land within the City, the issue of providing parkland will be exacerbated. In order to meet the goal of one acre of parkland per 1,000 residents, the City will need to acquire an additional 37.16 acres that can be used for public park and recreation purposes. The lack of sufficient parks and recreation opportunities could result in the accelerated deterioration of existing facilities due to potential overuse. Additionally, the lack of adequate, local recreational facilities increases reliance on the facilities of other jurisdictions that in turn could result in accelerated deterioration of those facilities as well. The lack of available park and recreation facilities, therefore, is considered a significant project-level and cumulative impact. Utilities and Service Systems: Solid Waste Solid waste disposal is an issue of regional concern. Many programs are in place at local and countywide levels to reduce waste generation and increase landfill capacity (at existing and proposed new sites). The Chiquita Canyon and Puente Hills Landfills are the end destination of the City of Rosemead's solid waste. Both of these landfills have enough capacity to accommodate the City's existing and future needs. However, Chiquita Canyon is scheduled, to close in 2019 and Puente Hills in 2013. After their closures, waste must be taken to alternative sites. Despite the continued efforts of the Los Angeles Area Integrated Waste Management Authority to increase its diversion rates, technologies are not currently available to completely recycle, destroy, or reuse all solid waste. Likewise, continued disposal of solid waste at landfills would contribute to the eventual closure of existing landfills and any future landfill sites. Although the amount of solid waste originating from Rosemead is very small relative to the volumes accepted annually at each of the regional landfills, diminishing landfill space is a significant regional issue, and cumulative impacts are considered significant. Potentially Significant Impacts that Can Be Mitigated This EIR identifies the following areas of potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant level: • Utilities and service systems: Sewer Impacts Considered in this EIR but Found to Be Less than Significant The analysis contained in this EIR indicates that the project will not have a significant impact with respect to the following: • Aesthetics • Biological Resources Rosemead General Plan 8-5 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Public Services • Utilities and Service Systems: Storm water Impacts Considered in the Initial Study and Found Not to Be Potentially Significant The Initial Study prepared for the project found that the project poses a less than significant impact or no significant impact with regard to: • Agricultural Resources • Cultural Resources • Mineral Resources Alternatives to the Project Through comparison of potential alternatives to the proposed project, the relative advantages of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives addressed be "governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice" (Section 15126.6[a]). This EIR does not consider an alternative site because the project involves all properties within Rosemead. The following alternatives are examined in this EIR: No Project-Maintain Existing General Plan If the proposed General Plan is not adopted and the current General Plan continues to be implemented, then the Mixed Use- High Density Residential/Commercial (MHRC), Cemetery (CEM), and Open Space (OS) land use designations would not be created. Increases in the amount of land designated for Mixed Use- Residential/Commercial (MRC) and Office/Light Industrial (OLI) designations would not occur nor would reductions in the Commercial (C) and Mixed Use-Industrial/Commercial (MIC) designations. Continued implementation of the current General Plan would result in approximately 34% fewer dwelling units to potentially be developed. This would primarily be due to the lack of the MUHRC land F ; use designation and a more limited area for the MURC designation. However, the existing General Plan's implementation would see a significant increase in industrial use primarily as a result of the OLI permitted FAR. Additional goals and policies aimed at enhancing the downtown's economic viability; enhancing transit ridership, and bicycle and pedestrian opportunities; promoting more sustainable planning and building practices; protecting air and water resources; and supporting law enforcement and other safety concerns and would not be created. Limited Mixed Use Development This alternative proposes to designate key areas for mixed use development while retaining some of the current commercial designation on Garvey Avenue, Del Mar Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard, and Rosemead Avenue and retaining some of the Office/Light Industrial near Garvey Avenue. This alternative continues to have all the other policies in the proposed General Plan. Under this alternative and compared to the proposed project, • Commercial designated land will increase by 129 acres • Industrial designated land will increase by 43 acres • Mixed Use Residential/Commercial land will increase by 41 acres • Mixed Use High Density Residential/Commercial will decrease by 169 acres Final Program Environmental Impact Report 8-6 Rosemead General Plan Executive This alternative can result in an estimated population of 65,832, estimated number of dwelling units of 16,983, and estimated non-residential square footage of 13,170,000. Given that all the other policies in the proposed General Plan will be included with this alternative, all of the improvements and impacts associated with those policies will pertain to this alternative, too. Reduce Density in the West R2 Neighborhoods This alternative proposes to reduce the density in the west R2 neighborhoods (the area bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad tracts, Graves Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard, and New Avenue) from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. All other areas will remain the same as the proposed project. All other policies in the proposed General Plan will remain. Under this alternative and compared to the proposed project, • Low Density Residential designated land will increase by 379 acres • Medium Density Residential designated land will decrease by 379 acres The total estimated population is 78,005, estimated number of dwelling units is 20,123, and estimated non-residential square footage is 14,320,000. Thus, there is very little change between the proposed General Plan and this alternative. In the end, "buildout" of this alternative could result in 621 fewer dwelling units and 2,405 fewer residents than the proposed General Plan. Given that all the other policies in the proposed General Plan will be included with this alternative, all of the improvements and impacts associated with those policies will pertain to this alternative, too. Environmentally Superior Alternative In summary, the Limited Mixed Use alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it maintains all the policies that encourage sustainable and environmentally superior development, promote economic revitalization, encourage transit use, encourage neighborhood maintenance, and enhance park and recreation. It also provides for the potential for enough additional housing to assist the City with meeting its fair share of regional housing, assists with maintaining relatively affordable housing, and encourages housing to occur in a form that supports transit use. Also, this alternative could potentially have fewer or less significant impacts on public services and utilities and service systems. Cumulative Impact The CEQA Guidelines define cumulative impacts as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects... results from the incremental impact of the (proposed) project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable... future projects. A cumulative impact can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time" (CEQA Guidelines). The General Plan addresses growth throughout Rosemead over a 20-year planning period. The project will result in cumulative impacts with respect to air quality, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems: solid waste. Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved Through the Notice of Preparation and public scoping process for the project (EIR Scoping Meeting was held on November 29, 2007), concerns were raised regarding the following issues: • Density and population • Biological resources, including trees and endangered birds Rosemead General Plan 8-7 Final Program Environmental Impact Report Executive • Aesthetics • Safety Issues • Quality of life and transportation, including parking, overcrowded streets, and traffic • Public service provision In response, the following sections with "less than significant" findings in the Initial Study for the project are included in this EIR for analysis: • Aesthetics • Biological Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Land Use and Planning Analysis of these topics is included in the EIR to address potential impacts. Summary of Impacts Table 8-1, beginning on the following page, summarizes the environmental effects associated with long-term implementation of the General Plan, the mitigation measures required to avoid or minimize impact, and the level of impact following mitigation. Final Program Environmental Impact Report 8-8 Rosemead General Plan N V N d C O O a1 .f M C N V 00 O m a Y a . r a C d E C O c W 0 O E N d U C m 2 E _ 6. y Ot T iT) U ~Q O r O `p N N x y O N A « E> N C Q C O Ott N U N N E O C N E 3: $ E E 0 = 0 a 0 0 00 M 0< J>cJ m~~Jcya > co U'J ~U Q C3 C O_ 9 0 O U oL7mrEmy~c ~oNQ«~ w E oar -'doN U n`o"v aE m 0 m m w.. C N C L f0 N d- C d o c U C E N E 0 0 ~ ° ~ C 0 O < N m« C M 0 ° 7 L Mo'E oE-'c' Mo .--=o N C y UC C V tO U' d C L a C a N = E = p » inO m d cma>mM~ :.>ma~ -M C N 0- 0 N C a o d C J N N F C E O O - N O N M 'D >c«N O« C T1- c o-0 E am d 'm nv ` m 0 o V J->? C a o O c o U E a o N a m~00 Ja0r mE N 0 N 3 C C C N _ E > N po d¢U OC TO yW M oFa C d N M E f0 O ° > cp UE o n QvEmo E 00° 0` om m yU'w Ev a E a E0 W-> a0i H«tndc4~EwE EaNU«U~ U) N r N C J a a C ° N N N N N C C C C N N C p N N= 0 N a C a N V O T N _ o ~cw~ W.- M ..a m~ «3 ° f0 m O xd ~ m cn aco c° av E '0' o- M Er O « J a ° ` . m a ~~'n cNC U i Oa0 w Oo marEawi c m w N 0 E N c m_ o f E a 0 m n CL O V' m 3 E m m I m a CNC« O E~HCN L L p~I~~C «LN- CL N- r N U d N . C 5 N UI 0 N. 0 H O O N N 3 E a C 0 d N C r ? O O H (7 O N 0 c p 0 m C N O L .L- y O y N N t0 N E O L J N N E E a o-0 L a N C 0 E 0NCNM~ a-N 30acmc' o .'m 0 E « - p 0 N¢ c a N M C J N o m M 0 0 N U °3 m Q L c O ¢ C7 o 0 r w> C d> . a Z L c w w w m - c N E, a m_= E C9 p a p c 0 7 N N N 0~ N N O¢ a p- N J` 2 U w w E W c E .Q C V t0 oto cm L0o ` oo ~ ° aO~0 cn ~ m m!'a ca i 0 d IF. 'E Lo ¢ ° C EEE >rC a`~=_omtcd0N co> 'Edooc N~aa Enc~ CN:~0 0L - Ca U p J f0 N N a~+ W 'N" l n J t (0 O N E m C7 N C l0 O y u N U N L f0 O N y ,.T U m- 'O .C O - U N C O U CL C~ N dot CM NO N N C N~ N0 N N a0a= 2 OLEO' N a°-' d J V j C i HNK9 F «'O U a E cCDN ~L as JL. fO « C~N d u C N C ° J E N ` m Z N m O a CL y C m d C o E m - ~¢m m MS ' U N 0 0 M N N c 0 0 a J o 0 :3 c5« ax P 00 O O c c a0> E N 0 0 E E m j u m x w N L N C~ L C •O .LM G v C r f co a a E r _O C E c 0 C W O D E E D N ~r 'E e~ W c . mm o~ -~m > E> J m c ~ p m y C m m U r O T C~ L N N N C C O N m Y no== O a a O« 'p C - m UE ma - - . p p Cc 0 O U p m :U~ 00= > 5 mm com . a m m 0o , DzE ' N T ~ O ~m- 0 c 0 DaEEa m m' a 3 ~nd O`-0~~ Mw . c ~ E ~ Ca '~4 s~m c o y ~ c a i N a m O m N O N M O m N d N m C a O > Y m c m C U U O m N O 0 a) m 0 L " m N U N a - C O a T C D C N 6 N O N " m m C m C O O C N C m N N C C O O E d L m v a m . m E m ~e N MO- m 'M a > O C M ~c ad :°.°0cma ao cEm o.o =a - m rn ao gc mpa~m ° ~w'-a ya , m 1°cmE o2'5a~imdyd .2 ui y N m O m« L 2. O (N/1 U N 'm' d N 0 U N _ « N O m V > C y J> U p a m m C O U° O ~~¢a2>m¢m~maaEm-SE0-m L U m N m "m" L p N U U W C C C p O L C« C p m C O C Q m m Y 0 u _ ° 1 -Q Mom«V5 w dm 0EEm E~'a 0 v o\ m N• (h n 9 N Q N N _ y m ~ U C 7 p a) O E x 0 0 m m a 0 Cm m p y c cO E I ? ° `o E 0 0 En mcYE .mm°L - N CN m=m E O a c m In c > > «U~ n'3 aa`~ m am off _ o > m c m~9 y c y u m g cj~ 75 0 dC=a `O Oa afO m c yc E y , ~ ~C ~d a a c m N E c E E~E.2 O 2 c 0yam O a-mp ~mm cmm wma ° 'c 0 0 c4 $0 a iccwomp c m C a Qa"im~c~cYi d mm -o mA°M~> O m m m 0 m 0I= O):: a a 0 m O m V N V M .L. m m 9 3 m O 2 «m lw =L 0a m W m. Z 3 c~ v a5~ « U c c E U ~ >;mn c p Z'3 oo c.-vr m p L m n Z N pp O « 'O U N m m a m m Lm-' ~~N 3 m 9 p ~u J Q 01NN O a N3m m c a`nN .L-.O T C: =m L N m m C ? ..C UE V. N N mU - p n m a O O- E _.E42] N y m E _T _.c 0_•Dmp V~- ~y 00 a c 0CO ? m o Lf ft aU L..` t U- p U N m« cl N C 4>.mN CU UaO~«L.m pU3aNONw3 ~dwy> a( o E , To -U m d K 75 d w VI 7 N a 0 0 a rn C O ~ y a y a d ~ F a C d E c O .C W O O E E a N d ~r tM= dx (D d > J (q ~ N mL L C y °33w s d - m 0 N a ~ N E' 0 N 0 N O C N (p d> _ d O N a0 3 E U m m- 02 0 id ooa N C c m d ~m a0 0 m` a N ~ U N N N ~ (n C ~ N m-- =c r E C Ol N m 3 0 Y _ N C o r U y N a y~ ~ O <0 d m m c c m OJ 3 m?rd~ ~E "T' a N N C~ C N U m `o 0 ~ N U C N -O o C _ F> E 4 p p U C N N N U N U N n OL ~ a E C C- T m - - T T p p` m >mm > E w E w ~ O Q .N.. Q N 6 m 0 0 N M 0 U N C C O c = Q E N N N C d_mNlO~ OU N 0 E 0 M=-. y .ydc 08= ¢ mM ~ - . n « n n M oc E u > E c >E~y o~0 E °~c•-mx >°m i y m~ m mo ¢ m o E Qyy ` <E .gy a d n0 a a o > c U L ~ c ` E = c c 0 E Q d ~ 0 a> 0 m E Q 'O Co a d M O V m« > O . L > O N ' p N O= L N Q L O N a 'T Nl00 N a3 n O` N ~ ~ C a ¢ . > W y L w j VU fO N tON m `t0 m o c 0 L E c E" C7 c m w ` m> m w E o m 5 E Ea~aQ E~a~m0z -f0-,-m 3 X M 5 12 a c N N a cc x m a c N 9 m a -9 E C M > U C L"' C ~ (J .ON' L ~ O > 1° ~ Un) =0 'd 0 Z m ❑ < U) L O C lV j j O a C C p p 0 O D_ C.2~C NL"' CaJ ~ N(~'~No ~ - rn rn= Lm m ?o o « a in3~ °c~m c c 0 0 rn m r. E o a - U N c m r 00 0 0 d d v 0 E m 0 d j x w N L 7 N O c 0 `a S C N co O d a E H t C d C 0 C W O a E E N V C C A O O E N I O) ~w v C v C 0 ~ O m C C A va O O 0 C ° c C U c (n J (n J m d O j m F m O I N C 2 m. a a 0E m J c O m 0 U m ' m N m c 3 d ° c . c m m a z E ` C E M c U U m m Ew ~doEE~c'0 a m L M O U y N T ` C C O m y d~~ y m a a U O C O) O O C O o m c30m C T m « c C E c== U E m O o y n.- m n rrn C> D~ 8- a O O 0 m m o Lm 3 Uy OOH~U'U« mo 1,,MEEao 'a a5 'oL d ° d a.n 'vmi 'ai E c c N Ei E E UU3~L w0U a _ C m H E n _ E M . . . . . . . W- N m T 0 U 'F 'y r m d Uw m c L N a m N m ~ M N m m o E° c' m c O c O N N C O m _ V c0 O N O j N X> m to ° « ry fO N O 0- O O y U w O N N d O C O n nm Jm d E O. m c L C O o«~ Na i,vN O C C _ ~L ° 0 N C Q n a N E T O m O mm~cros'.F-c`~ E E O N X . n C cm«2 cmEmJ S ? ao 0 c Vi m -E a 0 ~ > - t ;e .Jd rm ~E ~dca°iNdaoa y~ y 0 x (n m0aE of«mm macixc ma«o mm mrn9mm°0 -5 c m .c w c n m N o > - EEa c~~o' v m m'- L a_« E m o~ m- ° ? E Na cc M:a E c dm ° E $ d m 'N m m m m L>> y m m 3 E 3 a N L m T J y O G C V C 0 m C f, L r 3 m L C> N O _ - > m N U 0 N D C W 3 m m cd d L Eh J m p m c$ C m 'O C m m U ° C c C ~C7~ddE0 ~ O= e >oc - > U m m ~ m '0 M-003d~ W c 2 °1 imEmE QE~°m _ i ia u ca i N E:E-; t-EIE cca'Em C73 T ' n m« U O p A E . U 0 d m t O C U m m N . m L j n "O m p Cp U y U 2 C L a' 'O E 0 ~ C d OO C O> C> N vc3c~'' ; N ❑ > N C m m o-> mrnmdt2=~G2E m M U m N w 3-m °a;3o°~ C d N n 0 U O O E° J ~ N`~ 'a O O d J« QG d 'O O ID U N J A .4.1 pCp L m O~ n N ~ N= E E ~ E j O C C n C co E 0 '5) y 0O ~p N U H«n2 cmT«° zmUCmm mov«Q~$ U2 N m E 0 0 I S . T N E m V . ~ m m N ui - a i a Mmm C O ~ d C O m ~ I O (V co i 1 ~ x LL r" N L N cd L O 0 _a c 0 00 O d Q ~ E a c d E c O U W O a E N N COI C W Iq, ~ m in m C :y' w a a N .j d 'J" a i ~ o Z r'vs' M O N C . N N 3 c - N C E C C a N N d D U~ N C W O V a W C N N D W W C C- N O N n E p 0.- 0> . a a L U x N N Ol C N O = C N C m m Q ° E 2 2 n . ~N 0D r cWi N O m G O C . U N N ,L a. J`(a 0 ' U C W CL O N W c ° m W d N r= 5 0.- m ° M E0 a c W ` . O' OCmN U MoD O y ' W U U ~ v) n N T E a Q ~ . N ~ W d U N ~L m J O a0 J~ n m d W 'a2mm o 0 0 E W L C U o y L N m U U N D d ' N~ y o 0 W cD ~ 3Ey E°c03 c x.c 4cEN - U c 'WO m U EU U N V W - O U m w U d W N J y T T ~ J 200E= w 0 > > T p_ W ~ C 0 add cn m2 - " d t ni m m v E r= ° o ' O a d d tD N W d N d d Uj L..~ NL N Lw N- W 3-- -t0 cd m D ' ~ m ~3° ` d N rnm L N N 0 d w - d m d D a rN Q C d W N (D O N N D -O _T J D 3 L a 0- C O . " C C _ d L d U O N C a f0 l O O N d m = y D L- N N - r a W U m m O L y E 3 a C U a d O N N d CO > a L 0 S~O 0'U '0 0~~D O. O U 0) L N a O U N nd c.L. N O>_ `E d y mom~m dda~~a oc _ 3da~c~c c v m 0 °o t a u c N o N N .0 c m m ~ V N O O o y N N N NL C a 3 L "J Q N C W . L t . W W W « c d d C coooo r_ U a ~~am ca m > W W r C J y 0 d N O~ OU O. y N _ d E 2 - d U r E O. 0 N ~.W N d 0 N C d` m C C~ N W C W W E ~E-d2Uma>o0nN o ax~nn30 46 r N W L fD T a d m O LL a d C L " 1 d C d I N W > 2 N N Y d d p a L C N E C p C p> j 0 0. W D a 3 to c o n D 3 N .0 TL W a D D W ` C N N d V 0 W 'N T N d U a ~ m d N d N y - U C c d U~ m d L 'wrn a w :3 Nrn E v 0 W a W O a E O U E 0 C E O m O o_ O LL 0 O W W 0 0 E 0 m N d N 6 C O a a v a w a d Q H a C d E c O C W O 6 E E N d C'C A 2 6. w i0. C. O) 'a1 « d d m _ y~'~ m m m _ dI a a n J 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z N . ,m s ~ N 10 ry c o- m. rn - D m D N D m o- Q o m m d N N N O c0 O W D C O i O E E E 0 0 0 z z z V m N a O [6 O r ° O IU m 'r D O lD ° L ~jy C 3 N a L ~ N D= V O N m N U - O a) C m 05 o N . p L_ E M' m m o N U ~ m m o 'O m U !O > N c 3 0~ - ° (6 C m E M N m w L- U TLcUm dFm mOU M - U Z m 0J,T,« CC m cmJ CLD m O j°mN . .ia M mH mO p ZONJm da0 mEm n aD h._Nc mm Unm -°0 n0C7O c Nc DLL•.•0 o m . o7.00m Dmc N p c m 0 o N c m o w co c d m V m a m L M C« > N Q ' r U o m> .0 YO W o a'y d m W ' m` m N L c a O J Qj 0~ D c 0 N D« N L o = . > .-D c_cym~am d o o m u m U« o w° > w «coc~mc~c~m m o . m 333'" m a p o O m O d O E m > J m -m E m m w N c y o 0 O m lp m O D O „ -0 s C- a C N ' C ` Y VI 6 o°pE~0 m~c`0 - c ° m m cEt oinm m N O O m D C N N cZ ES m00 - L c ° - L QEmro r 111 a.- m° m O ° c E m 'FO ~ m w m ° o~ c mo m ` iEa~a3ommc°in a « ° ° T m D jJLC°c' m ~ om « waalc a T 3 O m ~o mm0 i C C C t] N U O m U m D m m D Q C D m m_ m a I p 9 C L U c O m m J a m m ' 0 O N _m p N Z N N m J C c EN oa p D m V O 7 m 0 ~y U .d„ my mm u QUmEa OD m E c c LO°."' mEo oEO"om~ n m ~N cZ m mm'-I - ccrn y ou m iE ' Q o ~Q~ i. :d Ica«maui aym~a°c iy`~oS~ a o - OU t v L ? O ~ m - Jo Oma° E mcy0 LOOO ' $ > C y m 9 - N01 y> N a ~ mJ~c Q ( CO U N C 0 (n L O w m L D c Ol a F l D- m C C m m T O m pp CL N V N y T 'E EM D w E V ' Ip O " O Q m rn0 EE 0 w z E V - h LL L CNa G C O a a. s c 6 v ao a d C .n ~ C d C O A:C W O a 2 a d uo c,r m- U U.- CD 41 4), N d c O~ p O N -C "O O O 'v° n N d d n C .L.. N 'O U U d m O 'O L a m ` 1 to 3 0 0_ U N ' - E - p°im%mJ~ mJ3°'`m~ opU)d d m m 0 O 00 ANC TC C 3 om 3 m nutm~cu E cpm~:°mo daaDi o m .-m. C d N a- 0 O E m N'O d O N lD J d U C C C m m dL - - zE~~V.Em WJ3 mL~dcf005d CL ` _ 'c NN~Nd 00 W'y~Ol-O XL Cm.Jd mnOU mE 0- me dc ...d moc E c " E•=._Eo~n' nE m.. o - w y 0 na~yc~mm=o mo - -c aE°omcEmN~~m °E=3 ~ o -0 >w mL~U'3n° D - m Q ' O m - c a= g d E C Y J m 0 ,O U d d n d D d N > . . o E m2 o'y J a~'3 c c'-.OC - ° - ' T T in O y E o'S m c 3'" w~ o'" o mo> ani na a a U W o~. o 'm -o. - m 2 ? U E W O on d N f0 V y oc No cE 2~o0o= ` n C N m N U c 0 d Y L d O y -O vl d C N 0 0>> J .c ._T'_' . y d O n n 0 N j C a N U C .N T N O N m N r O C U C O~ E d n rn~ E Ol. C ' o E y ai m -c d~ -OC c 6 E y? m3 3 3 a N -0 N O d ~Otllp Md C . L N J D d 0' 0 m > C r... m5 7 d 0 J= N d c m N C J L J J J C> O) 0 N L O O Q C m J t I U O_ C 0 0 O C U d$ ? O E m C O O U L O N 00 0= .N 0 O - E Um' n J 0 T 0 J w 3 W d U c W 01 3 o m ay E U 00 O E 0 c E `o w E 0 m 0 n 0 ll td) OD O a O m ,Cn V v 0 E N 0 v N d N a c 0 a rn C 6 CD a d a. 70 E f a C d E C O .h C W O E n H 'a . ~r co M= O 0 m _ N m m m 0 ID U a U a U a a m m > m m O Z o Z O Z N - ' m d C O f d d d J Q J Q J o- d d d - C O C O C O . t0 OJ : t0 01 m O) . E E E O z O z O z - -O n v c o c c mo -0 W- `o J P Y m o 0 0 0= m t m «m. 3 0 ;u o m - a O a L o°m' -L = c i16~Eomo N N N a N'O a N EO0°. mat0i °-'m ~ 0'C~ o~aC7 E E c _m c n m m 0 ; O N d ~c o c E o o E cry y E N> m y a E m -Co 0 a m " d0-.M 0L=F~= d~OU~~D ~'OO3 :c' a`mj~oOmJ~~`a`c ~5E ° o o0 moy`-m CU Z: 0 c m" m dt -a ` E._ c 0Em c . .N. E c m= E~ o E O m c E = m m° . m d T m m c O c c- m> c o ° E W m c c ~ a c g m o f .m. C c c m . m o y c m o 0 E p - +"0 mO C OCL t0 a mC E c LL, 0=M- NCL tZtm "Od 0E0 a= of O N OC U ' E om Ta0 0 m0 E 5 m 0- m- m_EcmToodmym~-~U..~ 3 E a. - 'o a s 00 a Q c_ L -m 0Z c oto a m _rn E E o W NO 5~-O TAO c m m m c ~ . a Oco -CEc... aNL p~jNm9~m m m i a m- O o o > Tm OUm C'O c o o a._ _ _ .m.. m C U C - C m y .m. l9 b C c L O N Q] [O -j _ L= C N m E m N > m Emmd."mc mo 75 cmi°aEi~mc E 0 Eao)=or o- m 3 W o m N O) m t0 m m N m > t0 d = o a N f0 > O d O N a a~ L m O E 0) m O m 'c r E ` ° T o c m 01 3 U U N L o E m m CL a D a ° O w ID 75 J m a N L N N a N O _ a a o E m m m > m 3 E -O An m N> L_ m m O C C C _ E»EC20` o W R0- O0 m°mLJOd~NCNNL c 0E W~amME LmN ' v c N N V 0 0 CL N E~w j p v y U c c H v a ° J -j CL z a LL Ls 2 L v a a LL i'. N L 7 Ca L t O a t a N ~ V a UI O' E F a `c d E t 0 t W 0 O E 7 CA dj O.' Cl c rn a7 w. N N w, U U .d x N N d^ O O J_ Z Z .N 7 N c. O. rn _ d d o• o• C O C O O) Ql E E 0 0 ' z Z U L N "O N N E N~ C~ U . G = U« C« U`L, = m .L.« U N Oi W' G O , . l0 ' a O- O > ` N r0 C O d N U C J o > y S 0= O M C f6 O m o~ E oS? mmToEO oo LmL C M (0 C U V N 'C y C C .,c w mnE m3U J m~o?om w > ° E a 2 y 00 0 1 E 1 aw 0 0 a° am 3 = 0 . m. oa~m~yE C C g O U E N >i _ N T N N L« N O S 'O U C N (~0 U C N T d = Li m0 = m N m . C' N C . o d L N l9 C 3 f0 a >mm ~t 'm m c m o cm 0. 6 2 _ p "ou U~mdmom mc~,°~dm Di N C. N 3 C C C L N > N "O > N 0 f0 N H C~ U~ >i C p m~ L (n d O C N m E C m ~ d V O aQ hm w E 5 N d ; T O) _.U °ZE ?N - ' o 6- Minin C7 fn t O a O 0 o. E 0 N E j w E O O) O a O n 00 O 0 c O E m 0 C d O C 4'9 CD O O Q l 4 F LL Y C N N T [0 C O C d C a) m l4 d N L w C1 L 9.0 Response to Comments/Comment Letters This section contains the written comments received by the City during the comment period and the written responses to these comments. It also contains a summary of the oral comment received at the public hearing on September 29, 2008, and the written responses to the comment. List of Commenting Persons, Organizations, and Public Agencies Dominic Baracchini Letter dated: July 18, 2008 Jack L. Jackson Letter dated: July 24, 2008 San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountain Conservancy Letter dated: September 15, 2008 Julie and Les Gentry Letter dated: September 16, 2008 Comments Received at the September 29, 2008 Planning Commission John Sanchez Planning Commission Public Comment: September 29, 2008 Rosemead General Plan 9-1 Final Program Environmental Impact Report to Comments Dominic Baracchini, July 18, 2008 This letter expresses an opinion opposing a proposed land use policy that would increase allowable densities on Valley Boulevard and Garvey Avenue, but does not comment on the adequacy of the draft EIR. This opinion is noted, and hereby incorporated into the public record for further consideration by the Rosemead Planning Commission and City Council. Final Program Environmental Impact Report 9-2 Rosemead General Plan f f r iy di ; r; I Yj }61 c~ iE? _a IJ L Response to Comments July 18, 2008 Received by Planning Division -7- 23 . 08 DOW City of Rosemead Attn: Matt Everling Re: General Plan Changes I am voicing my opinion as a 38 year resident of the City of Rosemead, regarding your planned changes to the City General Plan, to increase density on Valley Blvd and Garvey Ave from 14 units per acre to 45 units per acre. Please endeavor to keep density at 14 units per acre. Rosemead is now overcrowded with people and cars. This increase in density will add to traffic congestion, parking problems, air pollution, safety concerns and other negative factors that overpopulation causes. Thanks for your consideration Dominic Baracchini Rosemead General Plan 9-3 Final Program Environmental Impact Report to Comments San Gabriel & Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, September 15, 2008 This letter expresses several suggestions concerning potential open space, hydrology/water quality, conservation, recreation and park planning policies that could be included in the Rosemead General Plan Update. There are no comments concerning the adequacy of the Draft EIR. These suggestions will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for further consideration. Please note that the City has recently allocated funding for a comprehensive assessment of parks and recreation space needs and strategies, and will consider a variety of performance standards as part of that effort. Final Program Environmental Impact Report 9-6 Rosemead General Plan Ia; ft~ ~ $I Response to Comments 16:65 FAX( 826815124 Rilversaaountains I (III ~~'~02/0a5 O in'=le & AND , r; za Beard of rite d tmv NJ. dc.f d oimvle.aftr ved 14s 11= Wdfe 5, 2008 Ilt8=Ing Evening r°=pfyPC„anning AdminlSir ator of Rosemead 38 E. Valley Boulevard F~osemead, CA 91 T70 fjE City of Rosemead General Plan U ate, Draft Envircnmen Impact Report Dear Mr. Everting: T~ s Rivers and Mountains Conservancy. (RMC) is grateful for t opportunity to provide comments on the Clfy of Rosemead Dr General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report: The S' Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservant of Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RNIC) was established as independent Stale agency within the Resources Agency of the Ste of California to preserve urban open space and habitats In order provide for lomimpact recreation and eduoational uses, wildlife a habitat restoration and protection, and wa i rshed improvements. As the office responsible for disbursement of Proposition 84 (Sa Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply; Flood Control, River ai Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006), which provides funds for tl RMC gram program that funds local, state and federal agencies,l have an interest and concern about corde plated alterations of tai use in the vicinity of the funded projects. The RMC has reviewed the Draft ((General Plan Progm Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for it ye City of Rosemead ai has the following comments: General Plan Maps All General Plan Maps should depict exist Fig parks and open spay within the city boundaries in order to IF to" all elements of tl General Plan, Including proposed enhanosments of parka ai recreational space that may have an advirse physical effect on It environment. Hydrology and Water Quality Section 4.8 The RMC encourages projects that co ply with existing waif quality standards and waste discharge regulations set forth by tl United States Environmental Protection Ap,gency (EPA), the Ste Department of Health Services (DHS), the Regional Water Quality S' ^G.Ietd and L. L MBeld tuwa and Moumaml Cene .y Ell6aftw 100 0101 1 G86rkl CWM scot • Axifc G 91102 Ph i-.(626)815-1019•Pee(526) 815-1]59•F mall: vwW.ravta.g9v Rosemead General Plan 9-7 Final Program Environmental Impact Report to Comments 18 4G FAX 6268 RiversaNountalns Everting September 15, 2008 Page 2 RMC supports Principles and possible, strategies that Incorporate I the City to integrate these I Key Principles of Low I *act Development A number of key principl a characterize low impact developmel • Decentralize and mi manage urban runoff to integrate wat the watershed. • Preserve or mimic the cosystem's natural hydrologic functior • Emphasize a distributed, not concentrated, control of stormwa • Account for a site's toppgrophio features In its design. • Reduce impervious ground cover and building footprint. - • Maximize Infiltration ai-slte. (Current stormwater practices aim to move water off site as quickly as possible.) • If infiltration is not possible, then capture water for filtration an Integrafing LID principles into General Plan polities will help quantity goals for the City and will also Interface with agar address these similar issues. In addition, the RMC generally an • Maintain and improve flood protection through natural and ecosystem restoration • Establish riverfront greenways to cleanse water, hold fit space • Optimize water resources by improving the quality of su enhance ground water recharge, to reduce dependence • Coordinate watershed planning across jurisdlcbons and • Utilizes cisterns or similar devices to collect and recycle • Encourage mulb-objective planning and projects • Involve the public through education and outreach progi RMC also encourages the city to become informed about the I~ Management Plan ("IRWMP") for the Greater Loa Angeles C been mated and will oe implemented in accordance with the li Management Planning Act of 2002 (Division 6, Part 2.2 of the The IRWMP presents significant opportunities for integrated funding, and Implement) rg projects with multiple benefits in are water quality improvement, open spars preservation, any development- Involvement in the Upper San Gabriel River at should be a priority, either directly with City staff, through active Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, or other means. The RMC continues to plan and fund low-Impact and passive me territory and, in the course of this pursuit, works with many c similar agendas to leverage opportunities. RMC encourages review the Agency's Grant Program Guidelines availal Oob6d mid Lowy Ina Mgeb al•m• mid Ma IT1P =o ' 100 Old So Oabrid omyon 11s Phona.:(626) 815.1019 • F. (626) 815-1269. 15. cd: www.rmcmgov Final Program Environmental Impact Report 9-8 I into its cycles, just the opposite hey reuse. dress water quality and open space, plans that irages projects that non-structural systems eaters and extend open e and ground water and Imported water water on site Regional V lion, which preaches to planning,'. of water management, low-impact , remotion' Rio Hondo. sub-region 3agement with the San nion opportunities in its Aerating agencies with City of Rosemead to from our wabsfte: 7M m 91]02 a, 91 Rosemead General Plan r el 09 512008 16:68 FAN 626615126: ;j Everting September 15, 2008 Page 3 Rivers8aountalns www.rmc.ca. ov/ rants) for additional information on pot for projects involving ar quality improvements related do the parks and open space. Land Use and Plannin Section 4.7 The General Plan Prog m EIR should include land that is als Program The m EIR shoud reflect sustainable devalopment, foe promote the triple botto line (environment, economy, and so Gwemor's Office of Plgnning and Research published Genera (www.opr.ce.gov). Open space can serve a dual purpose of di and protection open spice, working landscapes and enSlronme addition, protection of laf ge open space areas that ere not new will assist in reducing the need for new infrastructure. Where fe should state °green in.frlrstructure' as a design element that w open space and trails throughout the city. Identifying opr development projects tolbuild upon a green infrastructure will pr for addressing the lack of parks, open space and trails contempt; Recreation Section 4.11 The Environmental Impacts section indicates that the city has opera per 1,000 people as recommended by the Nation Association (NRPA) and 4 acres per person by the Southern Governments (SCAG) on page 4-151. However, the next par proposed General Plan removes the goal of providing one e increased emphasis on maintenance of facilities and the d recreation opportunities particularly in Resources Management 1.7. It Is the RMC' s understanding, that the National Recre; endorses national per capita standards for facilities/park acreage standard of 10 acres of park land per 1000 persons was initial and park planners, there is general egrsemem that this goal is d of land suitable for acquisition or development as parkland an( addition, it was determined that a standard cannot be univer compared with another even though they have similar char approach in calculating park and open space needs requires ct driven consensus of what consfitutes an acceptable Level Of Se give a better understanding of how to determine recreation measure participation in recreation activities, monitor quality of and enhance on-sits antl off-site benefits. Additional Informatio be found in the publication Park. Recreation. Open Soave a (1996, Mertes & Hall) published by the NRPA.1 (See attached) the City establish a LOS goal or a park goal in the General Plan Increasing parks, trails, and open space in Rosemead, future pro the City will not Incorporate these elements that are so critical to e ' National Raremion and tenet & Hall). (hrtn: Ae609I811011, )'e'k. 'FA gowle toe Old Ban Gabdel Ce 9 (636) 815-1019 • Pex' (636) 8111369 wwlvxmc.ae.8ov of mole, that which 1 as referencad in I re Guldelihes. pg. g urban dommunit y sensltNs lands. y in public owners) e, General Plan goy provido a network vide the best oppoRw :ed in the EIR 9 goal of 1 acre of p; I Recreation and P; California Association igraph indicates that I :re per person, with velopment of additia cations 1.2, 1.3, 1.6 e lion and Park no Ion( While this basic spar i proposed to mcmati ficult to reach given la recreational: facllties. al, nor can one city cteristics. The revis es to take a commune vice (LOS) that will he leads and preference the service and expo regarding this topic c d Greenway Guidelin RMC recommends it Without a stated goal rams and orolects wilt (1996, Cm -'q i CA 91003 to Comments /005 E_.;. Kosemead General Plan 9-9 Final Program Environmental Impact Report to Comments a Ij, 2009 16:67 FA% 626B15128y Aieers&tlountains Mr. Everting September 15, 2008 Page 4 resources in the City. Included in this study, RMC would at analysis of the potent deterioration of parks and reCreabos greater demand and u by a growing population In th! City a Plan should promote t connectivity of parks and greenbelts appropriate, and in ail mend with the idea of joint-usel agrees adjacent jurisdictions, tats agencies, utility companies, and of on Page 4-152. These ideas should also be incorporated into t Recreation Elements Of the proposed EIR to effectively deal recreation and parkianI and anticipated population growth in the it should be noted tf the Whittier Narrows Recreational s southeast of the City Rosemead is currently undergoing a collaboration from sta holders Including the Army Corps Department of Public orks, LA County Department of Parke of Supervisor Gloria Molina, the Coy of Pico Rivera and the We The update to the Master Plan will address an area of approxl bounded by South El Monte, Pico Rivera, Montebello, Rnseme: Angeles County. Other, significant elements to be considered Ir Gabriel and Rio Hondo Rivers, and the major transportatic Whittier Narrows by the 605 Freeway and Rosemead Boulev participation in this process as well as any opportunity to consul on projects that may impacted the Master Plan update Ir appropriately in the General Pian Program Environmental Impac Finally, RMC would Ike to encourage the City to consider ad, water conservation element to the General Plan. Adhougt recreational and parks needs, developing an element to the Ge addresses open apace and water conservation goals will suppc described within this letter. Developing goais,for the City's fu account open space and water conservation goals will facilitate development and environment for your residents, Thank you for your co nsideratlon of these comments. I loo dialogue with the City on these opportunities as the Plan bece any questions, please Contact Aline Elokde at 6213 abokdegirrmg.m.pov. Sincerely, Belinda V. Fausti Executive Officar > encourage it facilities n Rosemead. voughout th, nits with act or agancles, a Land use, 4th meeting amity of Rose; a% Iodated duster Plan 1d Recreation, the Oftla v Replenishment District lately 1,400 acres that L , and unincorporated Lo! he study Include the Sal corridors diet. serparab A We invite the City'; vith your project planner, order to be addresses Report. Aft an open space sm the Clry does address oral Plan thai specificalh the strategies and goak Ire growth that take inh more sustainable form o forward to a cominuine les finalized. If you have 15-1019 x101 or a Cwuvvuuy CA 91703 (625) 615-1019 • Fur. (626) 613-1269• 1 orrv,r~sQm' Final Program Environmental Impact Report 9-10 Rosemead General Plan i is €r to Comments Julie and Les Gentry, September 16, 2008 This letter expresses a preference to retain existing land use policies for specific properties on Nevada Avenue, but does not comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. These comments are hereby incorporated into the public record for further consideration by the Rosemead Planning Commission and City Council. Rosemead General Plan 9-11 Final Program Environmental Impact Report to Comments September 16, 2008 Julie & Les Gentry 8915 Nevada Ave. Rosemead, CA 91770 626-572-4564 Received by plannirttgg DigvisiOnn Datc_!L Honorable Mayor John Tran, Mayor Pro-Tem John Nunoz, Councilmembers Polly Low, Margaret Clark, Gary Taylor, City Manager Oliver Chi, and City Planner Matt Fvcrling. This letter is regarding the September 9'h City Council Meeting. At that meeting; 1 requested that the Nevada Ave. properties of 8915, 8909 and 8903 remain zoned R-1 and not be changed to mixed-use overlay. City Manager Oliver Chi indicated that there had been some sort of error concerning this irne.nded.re.-zoning designation at the upcoming September 29'h. planning Cnmmission meeting. 1 am writing to requestAcon8nnadon that this error has been corrected. Thank you for your time and effort on our behalf. .Julie & Les GentryJy/,57~.~~~,L 8qa° S'~ hS C, ` Sv~pa~ C4 ~~77 0 r tit C1 ! G (/C • aQ CJ S~~i~ -e ce C~ ~ZI~Jr3~p 51 rLb7u~nmAJ~ ~Pif'll~r~IJalo C✓~~' C~A-g1 10- D" L~ 2) d 1~-b 1a7 890 8 )1r a-ka--5/70 rl it i / g90? I/21f4o/Q~v~ 71770 Fq6~ `I1~rr~~2a gc(' /x7770 Final Program Environmental Impact Report 9-12 Rosemead General Plan ~>s li':. Q Response to Comments Comments submitted at the September 29, 2008 Planning Commission John Sanchez, September 29, 2008 Comment: Although Mr. Sanchez did not directly address the DEIR, he indicated that his neighborhood has many types of animals (lizards, skunks, etc.) that inhabit the area. Mr. Sanchez said that he will contact local, State, and federal agencies to ensure that the agencies are aware of animal presence. Mr. Sanchez also indicated that he is concerned that new development may harm the animals. Response: The DEIR includes analysis of potential habitat for endangered, candidate, threatened, environmentally sensitive, and special concern plants and animals. The analysis concludes that there will be no impact or a less than significant impact. Refer to Section 4.3 for complete analysis. Rosemead General Plan 9-13 Final Program Environmental Impact Report t Q If= Appendix F California State Clearinghouse Compliance Letter O L Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2007111090. . " Prol-ect7ifle General Plan UPdate Lead Agency Rosemead, City of Type EIR Draft EIR.. Description The proposed project analyzed in the Program EIR is the adoption and long-term Implementation of a comprehensive update of the City of Rosemead General Plan. The project also includes revisions to the City's Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code) that will be pursued to implement General Plan policy. This Program EIR provides a program-level assessment of the general environmental impacts resulting from development pursuant to land use policy and implementation of the goals and policies set forth in all chapters of the updated General Plan, and the long-term implementation of the revised fk Zoning Code. Lead Agency Contact Name Matt Evading Agency City of Rosemead - _ - - - Phone (626) 569-2141. Fax. email . Address 8838 East Valley Boulevard City . Rosemead State CA Zip 91770 Project Location County Los Angeles City Rosemead ' Region Lat/Long Cross Streets City-wide Parcel No. 1F Township Range Section . Base ` Proximity to: Highways Airports , ' - Railways Waterways - - Schools: . Land Use L Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cumulative Effects; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismic; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Solid Waste; Tmdc/Hazardous; L Traffic/Circulation; Water Quality; Water Supply Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 4; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Office of Emergency Services; Department of'. Housing and Community Development; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 7; San Gabriel & Lower Los Angeles Rivers & Mountains Conservancy : Data Received 08/01/2008 Start of Review 08/0112008 End of Review 09/15/2008 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency..