The URL can be used to link to this page

Certified EIR ????????? ???????? ?????ª?¬®®¦ ????????????? ¬®®¦¨¨ ????????? Ý·¬§ ±º Î±»³»¿¼ ÚÛ×Î ×ÒßÔ Î ÚÑÎ ÑÍÛÓÛßÜ ÙÐ ÛÒÛÎßÔ ÔßÒ Ë ÐÜßÌÛ ÍÝØýîððéïïïðçð Ý»®¬·º·»¼æ Ñ½¬±¾»® ïìô îððè Î»±´«¬·±² îððèóêê Ý·¬§ ±º Î±»³»¿¼ èèíè Û¿¬ Ê¿´´»§ Þ±«´»ª¿®¼ Î±»³»¿¼ô Ýß çïïéð êîêòîèèòêêéï êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎöÓÎÛÐ ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ÷ÊÊÛÈÛ 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. ðÛÎØçÉ×ÛÎØìÍÌÇÐÛÈÓÍÎ÷ÉÈÓÏÛÈ×É ÖÍÊõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎúÇÓÐØÍÇÈ Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Potential General Plan Land Use Net Density/ Dwelling PopulationSquare Category Acres Feet Intensity (a) Units(b) 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 High Density Residential 97 19.8 DU/AC 1,917 7,431 0 C Commercial 62 0.33 FAR 0 0 880,000 OLI Office/Light Industrial 132 0.42 FAR 0 0 2,400,000 Mixed Use- 25.0 DU/AC; MRCResidential/Commercial 1421,769 6,858 4,930,000 1.60 FAR (c) Mixed Use-High Density 36.0 DU/AC; MHRCResidential/ Commercial 220 5,546 21,498 5,750,000 2.00 FAR (d) Mixed Use- MIC9 1.00 FAR 0 0 390,000 Industrial/Commercial PF Public Facilities 383 N/A 0 0 0 Open Space/Natural OS83 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. ùóèãíö éûîõûúêó÷ð Valley Blvd Steele St Guess St Ralph St Marshall St Glendon Wy Union Pacific Railroad San Bernardino Fwy Ý Artson St Hellman Av ùóèãíö ÷ðïíîè÷ Dorothy St Emerson Pl Whitmore St Whitmore St Park St Garvey Av Garvey Av Egley Av Newmark Av Fern Av þøY Highcliff St Graves Av Klingerman St ùóèãíö éíçèô÷ðïíîè÷ Keim St Rush St ùóèãíö WHITTIER ïíîè÷ê÷ãìûêñ NARROWS Pomona Fwy LEGG þøÃ RECREATIONAL PARK LAKE ùóèãíö ïíîè÷ú÷ððí èÛÚÐ×ÍÖùÍÎÈ×ÎÈÉ 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 i êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎèíùöÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ èÛÚÐ×ÍÖùÍÎÈ×ÎÈÉ ðÓÉÈÍÖèÛÚÐ×É Executive Summary Table 8-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................8-9 öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈèíùÓÓêÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ ÷Ä×ÙÇÈÓÆ×éÇÏÏÛÊÃ 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. èÔ×ìÊÍÒ×ÙÈ 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 Citys 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. ìÊÍÒ×ÙÈðÍÙÛÈÓÍÎ 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 Citys 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. ìÇÊÌÍÉ×ÛÎØíÚÒ×ÙÈÓÆ×ÉÍÖÈÔ×õ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ 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; êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎöÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ ÷Ä×ÙÇÈÓÆ×éÇÏÏÛÊÃ 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 Citys objectives. The chapters and key features of each are as follows: ðÛÎØçÉ× 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. ùÓÊÙÇÐÛÈÓÍÎ 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 truck routes. The Circulation Element includes five classifications of roadways: Freeway, Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector, and Local. Each classification is designed for a certain purpose and capacity. Key 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. ê×ÉÍÇÊÙ×ïÛÎÛÕ×Ï×ÎÈ 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 öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ ÷Ä×ÙÇÈÓÆ×éÇÏÏÛÊÃ 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. ìÇÚÐÓÙéÛÖ×ÈÃ 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. îÍÓÉ× 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. ôÍÇÉÓÎÕ÷Ð×Ï×ÎÈ 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. ê×ËÇÓÊ×ØûÙÈÓÍÎÉ 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 Action Rosemead City Council Adoption of the General Plan Adoption of any ordinances, guidelines, programs, or other mechanisms that implement General Plan policy Rosemead Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council to adopt the General Plan Recommendation to City Council to adopt any ordinances, guidelines, programs, or other êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ ÷Ä×ÙÇÈÓÆ×éÇÏÏÛÊÃ 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 éÓÕÎÓÖÓÙÛÎÈçÎÛÆÍÓØÛÚÐ×÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈÉ ûÉÉÍÙÓÛÈ×ØÅÓÈÔÈÔ×ìÊÍÒ×ÙÈ Adoption and long-term implementation of the Rosemead General Plan will result in the following significant, unavoidable environmental effects: èÊÛÎÉÌÍÊÈÛÈÓÍÎ 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. ûÓÊëÇÛÐÓÈÃ 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 x are projected to decrease relative to current levels. Despite efforts on the part of the City to reduce 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. ìÍÌÇÐÛÈÓÍÎÛÎØôÍÇÉÓÎÕ 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 öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈêÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ ÷Ä×ÙÇÈÓÆ×éÇÏÏÛÊÃ 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. ê×ÙÊ×ÛÈÓÍÎ 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. çÈÓÐÓÈÓ×ÉÛÎØé×ÊÆÓÙ×éÃÉÈ×ÏÉéÍÐÓØåÛÉÈ× 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 Rosemeads solid waste. Both of these landfills have enough capacity to accommodate the Citys 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. ìÍÈ×ÎÈÓÛÐÐÃéÓÕÎÓÖÓÙÛÎÈóÏÌÛÙÈÉÈÔÛÈùÛÎú×ïÓÈÓÕÛÈ×Ø 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 óÏÌÛÙÈÉùÍÎÉÓØ×Ê×ØÓÎÈÔÓÉ÷óêÚÇÈöÍÇÎØÈÍú×ð×ÉÉ ÈÔÛÎéÓÕÎÓÖÓÙÛÎÈ The analysis contained in this EIR indicates that the project will not have a significant impact with respect to the following: Aesthetics Biological Resources êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎöÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ ÷Ä×ÙÇÈÓÆ×éÇÏÏÛÊÃ Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems: Storm water óÏÌÛÙÈÉùÍÎÉÓØ×Ê×ØÓÎÈÔ×óÎÓÈÓÛÐéÈÇØÃÛÎØöÍÇÎØîÍÈ ÈÍú×ìÍÈ×ÎÈÓÛÐÐÃéÓÕÎÓÖÓÙÛÎÈ 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 ûÐÈ×ÊÎÛÈÓÆ×ÉÈÍÈÔ×ìÊÍÒ×ÙÈ 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 use designation and a more limited area for the MURC designation. However, the existing General Plans 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 downtowns 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 öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈêÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ ÷Ä×ÙÇÈÓÆ×éÇÏÏÛÊÃ 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. ùÇÏÇÐÛÈÓÆ×óÏÌÛÙÈ 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. ûÊ×ÛÉÍÖùÍÎÈÊÍÆ×ÊÉÃÛÎØóÉÉÇ×ÉÈÍÚ×ê×ÉÍÐÆ×Ø 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 êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎöÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ ÷Ä×ÙÇÈÓÆ×éÇÏÏÛÊÃ 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. éÇÏÏÛÊÃÍÖóÏÌÛÙÈÉ 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. öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈêÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍ ùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ ùÍÏÏ×ÎÈð×ÈÈ×ÊÉ 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. ðÓÉÈÍÖùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÓÎÕì×ÊÉÍÎÉíÊÕÛÎÓÂÛÈÓÍÎÉÛÎØìÇÚÐÓÙûÕ×ÎÙÓ×É 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 ùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉê×Ù×ÓÆ×ØÛÈÈÔ×é×ÌÈ×ÏÚ×Ê ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎ John Sanchez Planning Commission Public Comment: September 29, 2008 êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎöÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ 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. öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ Jack L. Jackson, July 24, 2008 This letter expresses opinions concerning proposed land use policies and the conditions of the Citys parks, but does not comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. These opinions are noted, and hereby incorporated into the public record for further consideration by the Rosemead Planning Commission and City Council. öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈêÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎöÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ 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. öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈêÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎöÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈêÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎöÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ 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. êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎöÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ 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. êÍÉ×Ï×ÛØõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎ öÓÎÛÐìÊÍÕÊÛÏ÷ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐóÏÌÛÙÈê×ÌÍÊÈ ûÌÌ×ÎØÓÄö ùÛÐÓÖÍÊÎÓÛéÈÛÈ×ùÐ×ÛÊÓÎÕÔÍÇÉ× ùÍÏÌÐÓÛÎÙ×ð×ÈÈ×Ê ?????????