PC - 1976-03 - Amendment of the circulation element of the general plan to eleminate street closures of DeAdalena and Glendon Way.PC.RESOLUTION 76 -3
• . x,
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
'OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENT OF THE CIRCU-
LATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO
ELIMINATE STREET CLOSURES OF DeADALENA
STREET AND GLENDON WAY, ELIMINATE TRAFFIC
FLOW ALTERNATIVES ON ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
AND THE SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY, ELIMINATE
THE PROPOSED EXTENSIONS OF'HART AVENUE TO
MARSHALL-STREET AND MARSHALL STREET THRU
TO RIO HONDO AVENUE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and deter-
mine that a public hearing was duly conducted on February 2, 1976, and
continued to February 17, 1976, in.the Council Chambers of the Rosemead
City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California, and that a no-
tice of the time, date, place, and.purpose of aforesaid hearing was
given according to law, and that further notice was given to all owners
of property, by first class mail, in'an area determined by the Planning
Commission to be the area affected by the proposed --elimination of street
closures and proposed- cf-e'himination of street extensions. Said hearing
was duly held at the aforementioned dates and place..
Section 2., The.Circulation Element o,f the'General Plan, adopted
by the Rosemead City Council on April 21, 1972 proposed:,
1. At page I -2, the closure of DeAdalena Street and Glendon
Way."
2. At page I -_1, :traffic flow alternatives on Rosemead Boule-
vard and the Sari Bernardino Freeway.
3. At page I -1, the extension of Hart Avenue from Valley
Boulevard to Rosemead Square.
4. At page 7 -2, the extension of Marshall Street west through
to Rio Hondo Avenue.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that a negative
declaration n was prepared and that no significant adverse environmental
effects were identified or associated with the proposed amendment tb
those portions of the Circulation Element set forth in Section'2 of
this Resolution. The Planning Commission further finds that the nega-
tive declaration was- prepared in compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA), the'guidelines for implementation of CEQA,
and Rosemead Resolution 75 -28.,
Section 4. The Planning Commission further finds that the
General Plan proposal to -close DeAdalena-Street and Glendon Way is
not in the best interests of the 'welfare and environment of the City
of Rosemead. Neither street•presently imposes a burden upon Rosemead
Boulevard, and closure would provide no benefit to the City. Thus the
0
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the
Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Rosemead'
at page 7 -2 to show a deletion of.the proposed street closures'.
of DeAdalena Street and Glendon Way.
Section 5. The Planning Commission further finds that the
traffic flow alternatives, as set forth in page I -1 of the General
Plan, are not in'the best interests of the community of Rosemead.
The.Planning Commission finds that present traffic burdens do not
warrant'the creation of grade crossings and similar expensive public
works. Thus , °,�the(Sp-lanning,Commission recommends that the City Council
amend the Circulatiori'Element of.the General Plan of the City of
Rosemead at page I- l.to,show'a deletion of the traffic flow alter-
natives described therein.
Section 6. The Planning Commission further finds that.the
proposed extension of Hart Avenue from Valley Boulevard south to
Marshall Street, as discussed on page I -1 of said General Plan, is
not in the public interest. Hart Avenue is .a residential street
and should not have an increased traffic burden imposed upon it.
Additionally, the extension of Hart would require the acquisition
of a number of single- family homes in the center of a prime resi-
dential neighborhood: Thus the Commission' that the City Council
amend the Circulation'Element of the General Plan of the City of
Rosemead at page I -I to show a deletion.o,f the proposed extension
of Hart Avenue from Valley Boulevard south_ to Marshall Street.
Section 7.`- The Planning,.Commission•further finds that the
Circulation Element`of`,the General Plan, at page 7 -2, which recom-
mends an extension of Marshall Street westward through to Rio Hondo
Avenue -is not in the-public interest.' Marshall is an essentially
residential neighborhood, and an extension on Marshall Street
through to Rio Hondo would create unnecessary traffic burdens in
a residential community. Additionally, the cost of such an..exten-
sion is not warranted by any benefits to.be gained by•the street
extension as proposed. Thus the Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council amend the Circulation Element.of the General
Plan of the City of Rosemead at page 7 -2 to delete the extension
of Marshall Street westerly through to Rio Hondo Avenue.
Section 8. The Planning Commission further finds that all
of the amendments described in Sections 4 through 7 hereinabove
are in the best interests of the City of Rosemead and will promote
the orderly flow of traffic and utilization of .public resources,
and further finds that the overall circulation of traffic through-
out the City will be facilitated and improved by adoption of
amendments to the Circulation Element as set forth in Sections 4
through 7 hereof.
Section 9. The Secretary shall certify
this Resolution and transmit copies thereof to
Clerk .
this /'7 day o 1976'.
. . 't 01
06;2� 1 * 01
DON DE TORA, Chairman
to the adoption of
the Rosemead City.
PASSED,'-APPROVEb, AND ADOPTED
-2-