Loading...
CC - Item 2B - Study Session General Plan UpdateROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE-HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2008 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION -GENERAL PLAN UPDATE SUMMARY As the City Council is aware, Rosemead has been in the process of updating its General Plan for the past several years. Since the draft General Plan was first distributed for review, staff has solicited input from the City Council, the Planning Commission and the community in a variety of different ways. A study session was held with the Planning Commission on January 23, 2008. Furthermore, staff coordinated community meetings that took place on February 5, 2008 and February 12, 2008. Finally, the Study Session being held tonight will give the community one additional opportunity to provide feedback regarding the draft General Plan. ANALYSIS Input Received From Governing Boards One important element in the General Plan update process is to receive comments from the City Council and the Planning Commission. The feedback that was received from those Governing Boards includes the following: City Council Member Comments Staff received comments regarding the draft General Plan from Council Member Low and Council Member Clark. Council Member Clark (Attachment A) • Opposes all of the proposed change to increase density in the proposed mixed-use areas to allow for up to 45-units per acre. • Proposes to keep the mixed-use density at the current level of 14-units per acre. • Removal of the Economic Development Element of the draft General Plan. • Removal of proposed bike lanes from all major roadway corridors in the draft General Plan. . • Parking and open space requirements to be maintained at current levels per the existing General Plan. APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: Q City Council Meeting • • February 26, 2008 Pace 2 of 4 Council Member Low (Attachment B) • Standardize land use designation and densities along all major arterials to be the following: All of Valley Boulevard and Garvey Boulevard be designated as MHRC. All north / south arterial streets (Rosemead / San Gabriel / Del Mar) be designated as MRC. • Remove the commercial / industrial mixed-use designation (MIC). • Change the medium density residential land use designation in the southwest portion of the City to low density residential. Plannina Commission Vice Chairman Kunioka (Attachment C) • Approves of the draft General Plan. • Traffic impacts greater in commercial developments when compared with mixed use development. • Draft General Plan expands existing housing stock and discourages mansionization. • Draft General Plan would increase housing affordability. Community Input Received & Recommended Changes Proposed Ultimately, the updated General Plan should reflect land use changes that fit with the character and feel of the entire community. Taking that issue into consideration, staff coordinated several community meetings to receive input from anyone interested in offering an opinion on the Draft General Plan. There was an overwhelming response from residents as we had well over 100 community members attended these meetings. The overwhelming majority of the meeting attendees had serious concerns regarding the following three specific issues: • Density • Traffic • Parking Specifically, the recommended changes that have been proposed for the Draft General Plan include the following: • A reduction in density for mixed-use developments back to levels in the current General Plan. The consensus opinion that was received indicated that the increased density in the mixed-use designation would degrade the overall quality of life in Rosemead due to parking demands, massing of the buildings, and the influx of new residents these projects will bring, all of which would result in additional traffic and also would place a strain on the City's aging infrastructure. City Council Meeting • • February 26, 2008 Page 3 of 4 Staff has also received several letters from the community echoing this sentiment, which have been attached to this report (Attachment D). In addition, Council Member Clark submitted documentation (Attachment E) that she received from residents who are opposed to the Draft General Plan as it is currently constituted. Those documents mirror comments that have been received at community meetings and touch on the following as major issues of concern: • Density - The increase in proposed density with mixed use development. Residents are against the increase in density from the current maximum of 14du/ac to 30 and 45du/ac. • Traffic and Parking - Concerns with existing traffic and parking conditions throughout the City, and the decrease in Level of Service (LOS) standards with the addition of future development and population. Specifically regarding the decline in quality of life for existing single family residential neighborhood due to excessive on- street parking. Traffic signals also need better synchronicity. • Optional Element - The optional Economic Development Element should be removed from the draft General Plan and made as its own separate document in the future as guidelines for the Council. • Mansionization - Residents view these large-scale single family homes as degrading the quality of established neighborhoods because the homes are too massive and the architecture does not harmonize with the neighborhood. • Infrastructure - What is the status of the City's current infrastructure and does the City have a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in place to address future development? • Sense of Place - Where is Rosemead's downtown? Does the City have a downtown? Will the City have a downtown? • "Greener" - Residents want the City to become a more sustainable community. • Bike Lanes - Residents do not want bike lanes located along major arterials for safety purposes. • Public Transportation - Current bus lines are not efficient or convenient. All bus stops should have benches with shelters. Developers should be required to provide new bus turn-outs to increase traffic flow and improve pedestrian safety. • Commercial Truck Routes - Residents do not want commercial trucks driving through local residential streets. • Medium Density Residential/R-2 Zoning - The southwest portion of the City bordered by Walnut Grove to the east, Hellman Avenue to the north, and Graves Avenue to the south could be changed to Low Density Residential/R-1 zoning to discourage future multi-family development. City Council Meeting • • February 26, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Open Space - The City is lacking park space. Residents would like to see the Edison easements used as open space together with the creation of a linking trail system. • Education - Residents are concerned about the education and the availability of credible schools. Finally, Council Member Taylor has submitted a newspaper article (Attachment F) which was published in the.Wednesday, February 6, 2008 edition of the Los Angeles Times entitled, "Taller Buildings A Tough Sell." The article describes challenges facing Los Angeles over the issue of height limits for new development. Prepared by: Matt Everling City Planner Su e B aeki Assistant City Manager Attachment A: Correspondence from Council Member Clark Attachment B: Correspondence from Council Member Low Attachment C: Correspondence from Vice-Chairman Kunioka Attachment D: Correspondence from residents Attachment E: Submittal from Council Member Clark Attachment F: Los Angeles Times Article From the desk of.... g x V,` "C Margaret Clark, Councilwo a USE= City of Rosemead CITY CLERK 3109 N. Prospect, Rosemead, CA 91770 62,6-288-73,08 My comments on the General Plan Amendment. P 2-12 I Strongly oppose changing the mixed use residential unit to allow 45 units per acre for the following reasons: _Giving away the city's ability to mitigate and modify projects.At the present time, developers must ask permission from the city to build a greater density of housing units in the mixed use project and thus the city maintains the "stick" to be able to require mitigations that we might not be able to require if the standard is lowered to allow a higher density where the developer can rely on his "legal" right to build as long as he meets the newer higher density standards. This is particularly important in light of the state law requiring the city to give density bonuses to developers who ask for them if they agree to provide a percentage of low or moderate income units. If it is true that the city must provide the density bonuses such as reduced size of parking stalls and reduced amount of parking even if the developer does not provide some low or moderate housing, then this is all the more reason to keep the density requirements as they are so that the city maintains control. 1. The argument that developers will not be able to build is specious because we already have several projects going in without the general plan change. 2. The argument that the General plan allows 30 units per acre in residential zone and therefore we should allow greater for mixed use is "apples and oranges". In the R-3 zone apartments can have a greater density because the impact on parking and traffic is unique to residential. In other words, a typical residential unit will have an amount of trips per day typical of residential, depending on adults going to and returning from work, perhaps leaving in the evening to shop or attend meetings, etc. Mixed use, on the other hand, is designed for commercial uses on the street level which by their very nature to prosper depend on high trip volumes 3. In my many years serving on regional bodies such as Southern California Association of Governments, I have become very familiar with the current trend toward mixed use which has its highest potentiala "tr_ap_sitt .ented development." As in cities such as Claremont w is is, o'cated on the Gold Line Transit the Mixed Use makes sense as it encourages`rres dents to live above the retail to which they can walk, and then take the train to work and other destinations. However, in a bedroom community such as Rosemead which is ~~hi not located near a rail line, the advantages are not applicable, and indeed in my opinion would be detrimental to the surrounding residential neighborhoods that will be impacted by the reduced parking requirements that are proposed for such developments. Some communities have already implemented parking fees for residents to park on their own sheet. Traffic congestion is inevitable on the thoroughfares adjacent to these projects. One only needs to travel eastbound on Valley Boulevard through our neighboring city to the west to see how traffic congestion results from over development. The Draft General Plan even acknowledges the potential negative impacts of these developments on residential neighborhoods: A)p 2-17 pp.8 "At is important that the design of new mixed use projects (sic) 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 larger community." B) Policy 3.3 "Provide adequate buffering between residential and com mercial..within designation Mixed Use areas, as well as in adjacent areas." Acknowledgment of the need for buffering. C.) p3-22 "Traffic volumes will continue to increase on Rosemead roadways whether local development is intensified or not." This implies that increased traffic is inevitable and we don't care if we exacerbate it. I strongly object to this. D.) p3-35 Goal L" Vehicular traffic associated with commercial and industrial uses should not intrude upon adjacent residential neighborhoods." E.)p.3-35 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." F.)policy 3.2 Annually review 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. p 3-36 policy 4.4 "Establish in-lieu parking fees for downtown areas." These 2 policies apparently refer to rationed/permit/fees for residents and their friends to park on their own street. This is totally contrary to p.2-17pp8 cited above which states projects should reflect the established character of Rosemead as well as other statements acknowledging the need for mitigation of encroachment on existing neighborhoods. 5. Spillover Parking into Neighborhoods Many of the projects are getting around traditional parking requirements by building parking structures or subterranean levels. Such provisions have not always been successful in other cites and the question remains whether patrons will park in an underground lot either for security reasons or the inconvenience simply for a quick shopping trip at the retail outlet and thus the parking will spill out on to adjacent streets. 6 Encroachment into privacy of neighborhood I am extremely concerned about the encroachment into the privacy of surrounding single story residences from 4 and 5 story developments. The council majority has already approved 2 major projects without implementing the "line of sight" requirements that were approved in the Design guidelines which required a 20 degree line of sight from the top of a 6 foot wall at the property perimeter. While these 2 projects were in the `pipeline' before the council approved the design guidelines, the council still held the final say over the projects because the developers needed a zone change and general plan amendment. Once the General plan is changed, the council • 0 has given away its authority. The argument that the state only allows 4 general plan amendments in one year, if that is indeed true, should not deter us from maintaining the general plan as it is in regards to density, because this year we have not had more than 4 projects requesting them. I do not see the need of more than 4 of these major projects in any one year. Roof Gardens - no substitute for necessary play areas: I am concerned that developers are also getting around the open space requirements for families with children to have a place to recreate by using the space on the roof for such activities. I do not believe these areas will be utilized by families with children and therefore we have traded away a necessary component that is needed to combat the increasing afflictions of today's children such as childhood obesity that is becoming epidemic. Other concerns: P. 4-1Chapter 4 Economic Development should be a separate document as guidelines for the council. It should not be included as an element of the General Plan because, as stated in pp2 " the Economic Development Element is not a State-mandated element of the General Plan, "The Government code states that once an optional element has been adopted, it has the same force and authority as mandatory elements." Nothing prevents us from implementing the guidelines stated in the chapter and therefore 1 feel it is very unwise to essentially place a state mandate on ourselves. Typographical Errors: p. 1-3 caption under picture should read "Guess" Family - not Guest. p. 2-18 policy 3.4 delete one "pedestrian friendly" Corrections, additions requested: Page 3-30pp4 "Trips by bicycle can be encouraged by both on-street and off-street facilities. On-street facilities would include striped and signed bicycles (sic) lanes on cross-town routes"... p.3-37 Goal 2 Action 2.2 I strongly disagree with a study of potential for inclusion of bicycle lanes along major roadway corridors. This is inviting disaster for bicyclists whose lives are in jeopardy with the massive increase in distracted automobile drivers. Physically isolated and protected bike lanes are the only ones I could support, having heard horror stories from my medical doctor children. However, I encourage bike trails along the rivers and parks. p.3-37 Action 2.3 1 do not see the need for a centralized transit center when the El Monte Bus station is in such close proximity. Rather coordinate with that facility. p. 5-11 Policy 2.3 insert "Require new developments to incorporate native drought tolerant landscaping and coordinate this with p. 5-19 Action 2.5 regarding xeriscape. p. 5-16 Delete portion of pp 2 under Policy Map and Plan which states"The Edison easement has been used as an open space corridor, however, the City is allowing the development of this corridor, and approval by the LACo. Fire Dept is pending." p. 8-1 Correct title of Michael Burbank ' GABRIEL SAN rfR BU 1 VALLEY NE Monday, November 19, 20(17 www.sgvtllbuue.Lrom' - , Ib1Y aEpFWMlf11f p61HmOna:lae pmnay OmmmY~lm eppa Snm f,letlva Smtlm P4mta MaMwretllebdl stl mrvne:dae/ebpnenTo I mr ene~tmen aacm=ewareyroarm uneamm nwm rows mine an t>oemlmoec n. Glendora on the rise Mixed-use projects putting community on map ` ~MMba Penn . mhN"owp/olee eev mwmwo eu _ mawA U.ma mvmvmea loWm• ' wao~ma i~°w. ea m Woo- yu.~ / : >k mmw. samame smm" to see It It . W mw a roam avnalup ue Wee or reav a xv bona 4 wma vp m Vermom Am Yume~ Y mp{vbl pr nnm rm 'Ebro a dl won W.fdmam• d w,AdM prswc a c mPles1 Wa We 9mh6amMEmmab W Toes 195nT 71•mly rbewWOm'. 1- yamWJe Aeevueamamn n ur. hws,/aakrA Vaebu dee-wY eA Wehepj,vgb4opmeWyoaYq orWeweuis-rc0mamew M' pina ~~ae. ~aJOpmmtw ~ umewe p1O~°aamart pM ui.a-mmua ®maww: w rs ft. a WRb LonvNho ftnucdw~ e, bu- aaopNt h W aO W ®e re plmvm{ nary A rLw1y Yaeyv m•ve Waltm m6 Ass to Y Lklmmll /aye a satrtribunexom GLENDORA . Bedroom community waking "op'' Contlmmd from Page 1 sire, McDermott Add, The units wm be helwem 1,W0 and 1,800 said. Alves feet In the use of Glendaia Station, The project features a public both the city and the developer, pure - • weIXway through the Nlemann Properties are eager m pmjecl from the Gald Dive statlov create ham. not in Me light mIL towmd the Town Center. it will That waY, commuters ran get to also have a rmlica of the old red- work without getting In their .rs waY Station. officials ui6 The prefect should be complete . 'there V anaRVre for a cerWn 69 summ 1011,11 the develop-' permim market segment who waet th Iiv rot mmer pany ghe fle near mass tmmit Ira kind of a m summa McDermott rid. new thing fur Ins Mgel.; but not The inn .e in mixed_ use end tutu' pmlm[ manager. 9 makn S lot of Acme' The pmkvt le one of by the Gold we mnstruccon authority, projected that $2.1 bil- He. In public end private money his been Invested into develop shouts within a balf-mile of Me stations Met au planned in the 11 cities emceed by the planned light-.0 mchisher from St. Msdre Vibe In P.aderia Glenda. Station will be at the southwest comer of South Glen- den,aod Wed Ada avevu. where a Santa Fe Railway station smod until the 1960; Walter add Now the lot Is dotted with Weeds and a fie r . it b one of the but empty P• • near downtown. The project's condo units will range from the nsld-g100,00m on the mid-g600.W(b, depending on don Is a sign of the times, a6- riLLS acid. ties throughout the Age sued" .;a country are moving In this dlrech ~sien they Uralcopro- ea vide hauling fled Dity ou people ee^ep t tre"Asitlonbng out of of an evdedtin Welter Atod. hine MInpentran to shift the zoncour, b g going have shift m meom- age that' But Glevdam WWrtshUt- Wabedroommnwmkyaut do en o a( the erees.wheee,viate dome said. net moot V petmiRed, a a said " - That will come as y' relief to thou wit. value Me city's resider, tie I Soanne ' pmyle tool d. wan[ any me Change,ed And. . But, he added, grow live an areaor, igoing no grow whether . W<wavt tm or vat' mdt P25) m %.px5811, -3811, FA 2110 x110 , ~/zrt~Srl C)rten4td. ~/xecQ Us,-, Deje)lmer)+ 4L 0 Dec. 13, 2007 Addendum to Margaret Clark's comments on Draft General Plan: Please note appendix B San Gabriel Valley Tribune 12/13/07 "New Glendora development to center around light rail" Note opposition from residents even when it fits the concept of "transit-oriented development". Note even with a project along the Gold Line, developers have scaled back the project on the side where it abuts residential units. n C m 31 KU) ca 0 mj w N O 0 V" • • From: Polly Low To: Brian Saeki Cc: Oliver Chi Subject: Comments on General Plan Here are my comments: 1. All commercial and industrial zoned properties along the east/west arterials (Valley and Garvey) be included in the mixed use GP designation of MHRC. 2. All properties currently proposed to be included in the mixed use GP designation along the north/south arterials (Rosemead, San Gabriel, Del Mar) be designated as MRC. 3. Remove the commercial/industrial mixed use designation (MIC). 4. Change medium density residential designation in the southwest portion of the City to low density. Polly Low Councilmember City of Rosemead 8838. East Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770 Telelphone: 626-569-2100 Email address: plow o cityofrosemead.ora • C November 29, 2007 From: Mr. Todd Kunioka, Vice Chairman, Rosemead Planning Department To: Rosemead Planning Department Re: Scoping Meeting in Preparation of the EIR on the Rosemead General Plan Revision As part of the seeping process, the city is required to identify the environmental impacts we want to make sure are taken into account as the city prepares its environmental impact report on the city's General Plan revision. I wish to include this memo as part of that seeping process. At this point, the responsible thing to do is to consider both the positive and negative effects of changes to the General Plan that would encourage increased use of mixed use development along major corridors within the city. This means considering what would happen if we do NOT revise our general plan to define mixed-use corridors. Among the impacts I believe need to be considered in the environmental impact report are: 1) Sales tax revenue; 2) Traffic impacts of alternatives to mixed-use development; 3) Impact on housing stock and mansionization; 4) Impact on housing affordability in Rosemead; 5) Regional and global impacts of mixed-use versus non-mixed use development 1. Sales Tax Revenue Some people are trying to scare the city's population into opposing any change in the status quo. While that may be a good political tactic, it is not a responsible thing to do. People who expressed blanket opposition to mixed use development need to be asked what alternative they would offer. If their answer is, "Nothing," then nothing is what our city will get. Do we want more recreational programs for our city's population (youth, adult, and senior)? Do we want to do more for our senior citizens? How serious are we in the war on graffiti? Do we want to maintain or increase the law enforcement presence in our city? All of those things cost money. And, in the post-Prop 13 world we live in, that money comes from sales tax revenue. Page 1 of 5 1* • A few years ago, some city council members decide our need for sales tax revenue was so dire that they were willing to put in a structure that would attract about 1,000 cars an hour to a place right across the street from an elementary school, and with the rear wall of that structure just 150 feet or so from the property line of residential dwellings. I opposed that decision, but I thought I understood their motivation: tax revenue and jobs. Our city still needs tax revenue and our residents still need jobs. All of the mixed-use projects we have seen in this city will increase the number of jobs and the amount of tax revenue flowing into our city's coffers. And none of the mixed-use projects I have seen come any where close to generating 1,000 cars an hour in increased traffic. If not mixed use, then what? And what will the impact of those alternatives be on our streets and our population? 2. Traffic Impacts of the Alternatives to Mixed Use Development Mixed use developments that we have approved so far have all had floor area ratios (FAR) of about .35 or less. That means about one square foot of retail space for each three feet of property area. Developers are willing to construct these projects with such low retail densities because they can make it up when they sell the residential units. Mixed use means we are effectively trading increase retail density for increased residential density. That means more people, but not necessarily more car trips. People living in the upper units of a mixed-use project will be able to walk downstairs for many of their basic essentials: food, clothing, entertainment, etc. But, most importantly, in weighing the benefits of mixed use development, you need to consider the alternatives. If you tell the developer they can't do mixed-use, what's going to happen? Option A: Nothing gets built. That means no increase in traffic, but it also means a drop in per capita tax revenue. That means cuts in recreation or public safety or other city programs. If that's what you want, then be honest in what you're saying. Say you want to cut senior and recreation and public safety programs, because that's what will happen if we don't bring in additional tax revenue into the city. Option B: The Developer goes with a straight retail project. That's what they're doing in San Gabriel. Their new projects on Valley are all two stories high, with retail on both levels. That produces a retail FAR of 1.0 or over. That's three times the retail density of our mixed use projects. And we all know that it's retail, not residential, that generates significant car trips, increases congestion, and increases pollution. 3. Impact on Housing Stock and Mansionization Keep in mind what either Option A or Option B (above) means: No new residential units on our main commercial avenues. That means that people wanting to live in Rosemead are going to either pack themselves with even more bodies in each room of existing apartments or homes, or Page 2 of 5 • there will be even more pressure for mansionization. Large families that can't buy separate but adjacent condo units in a mixed use project will instead decide to knock down an existing home or two and build a large mansion. With a big enough lot, all of the necessary setbacks and FAR requirements will be met, but the home will be enormous. Some may think we have an on-street parking situation now. But wait until a 5,000 square foot home pops up in place of the small apartment building in our residential neighborhoods. And make no mistake: the population in this city will grow. That's due to people having kids, and it's do to migration and immigration to Rosemead from the other states and from other nations. Will these new arrivals live in a condominium on Valley or Garvey? Or are they going to just keep getting packed denser and denser into our existing housing stock? Or will they build super-sized mansion on your quiet residential street? If we don't allow mixed-use development on our major streets, the result will be either denser living arrangements in our existing homes, or super-sized mansions. There's no other way to work around the law of supply and demand. Please do not lose sight of the bottom line: Mixed-use projects will generate tax revenue without increasing our retail density to the level we see in San Gabriel on Valley. And they'll bring in residential units that will reduce the pressure for mansionization on our residential streets. 4. Housing Affordability Even more important that the reduced pressure for mansionization, many (if not most) of the residential units in mixed-use projects will be affordable to people of moderate income (which the state defines as up to 120% of the county's median income). Indeed, pretty much every project we have approved so far specifically included a provision for ten percent of the units to be set aside for those moderate-income households. No, not everyone in the city will be able to afford one of the new moderate-income residences. But, let's face it: Even fewer can afford to buy the new McMansions coming into our city, at $700,000 or more. Allowing new housing to come in at a price-point below the McMansions means more affordability. Also, as some of our residents "move up" from their current dwellings into these new mixed-use projects, vacancies in lower-cost apartments and homes develop. So even people who can not afford to move into the new mixed-use projects will find increased vacancies in more affordable housing units. Of course, if the city's elected officials wish to push for additional affordable housing components in the general plan revision, that is their prerogative. I absolutely think that trying to make sure we don't force anyone out of Rosemead on account of their income (or lack thereof) would be a good idea. But if that is to be the city council's wish, they will need to come up with the money to make that happen. It is not reasonable and it is not fair to expect a developer in 2007 to take on the added burden of addressing the dearth of low- and very low-income housing Page 3 of 5 • • opportunities in our city that are the result of the previous 10, 20, or even 30 years of city policy. Asking a developer to do this is either going to guarantee no new housing in our city, or more expensive housing for the units that do get built. Neither is fair to the next generation of home and condominium purchaser. If the city wants to get serious about making housing affordable, its elected officials need to step up and say how they're going to do it. Otherwise, stop making empty promises to our residents that you no intention of keeping. 5. Regional and Global Impacts. Mixed-use development has a smaller environmental impact than the traditional single-family home. For example, while most of a home's water use is used for yard maintenance (watering your grass, trees, and shrubs), a mixed-use development has greenery concentrated on the roof or in the planters within the parking lot, and they are of the low-water use variety. Assuming drip- irrigation is used, this will consume substantially less water than would a like number of single- family homes with grass yards. This will reduce the water we need to import into the region, and it will also save us the energy and pollution needed to generate the energy that would otherwise have been needed to deliver that water to southern California. Heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer will also be lower, meaning less pollution generated producing the electricity or burning the natural gas. Rather than having 100 degree air surrounding a unit during a summer day, or 35 degree air surrounding a unit during a winter night, most units are mostly surrounded by room temperature air. That translates to less heating and cooling demands, which means less demand for electricity and natural gas, which means less pollution and lower carbon emissions. Also, note that most of the mixed-use projects we have approved will also help combat the urban heat island effect. The heat island effect is the phenomenon whereby temperatures in urban, developed areas tends to be five to ten degrees warmer (especially on summer nights) than comparable undeveloped areas. The heat island effect not only increases air conditioning demands for residents of urban areas, but it also leads to more severe ozone pollution problems. That's because the process whereby partially combusted hydrocarbons are converted to ozone is sped by warmer temperatures. Combating the urban heat island effect thereby increases our comfort level, reduces our air conditioning demands, and cleans up our air. By planting greenery rather than having exposed bare concrete on the roofs of these mixed-use projects, the structures absorb less heat in the summer and that means less radiant heat from the buildings in the afternoon and evening hours. And that means a smaller heat island effect. Summary This seeping process needs to take the broad view. Don't just think in terms of, "If we replace a Page 4 of 5 strip mall or an existing apartment building with a mixed use project, what will happen?" Think in terms of, "If we do not encourage mixed use development, what's going to come up on our streets, instead?" Consider the traffic impacts of the pure-retail developments that would pop up if we do NOT encourage a shift to mixed-use. Consider the increases speed and size of mansionization on our residential streets if we don't increase our housing stock on our major commercial streets. Consider the increased upward pressure on housing prices if we do not allow residential condominium units above our retail projects. Consider the decrease in housing affordability if we do not allow mixed-use development. Consider the impact on our quality of life, in terms of air quality, regional temperatures, and impacts on our per capita tax revenue. Page 5 of 5 • • 14 February 2008 Mr. Matt Everling Receivsd by City Planner Planning Division City of Rosemead / Rosemead CA 91770 Date y` v Re: Planning Workshop @ 12 February Dear Matt, Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinions against the proposed density proposal now circulating city hall. If you recall, my objections were centered on the negative effects the proposed multiple-use structures and the population increase they will create. Rosemead is a small town surrounded by a major metropolitan area. Auto traffic through our little town is huge. Gridlocked intersections are the norm during heavy drive times coupled with the traffic frequency we now endure. I believe it is extremely non-productive to take steps that will surely impact the traffic situation further. The council, and planning commission, should be striving to create more industrial sites within the cities borders. The benefit to the city can be measured in taxes the factories will generate. This step could eventually lead to Rosemead residents working in Rosemead. That probably will ease some of the ongoing traffic problems. But perhaps you will counter with a fear of increased truck traffic in the vicinity of the industrial sites. It has been proven that traffic of this sort can be contained with creative traffic management regulations similar to those that were employed during the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. The heavy density plan caters to commercial storefront businesses. Have you ever taken notice of the number of vacant stores in our area? Where will the new tenants come from? The other thing that bothers me is that the presentation you screened for the workshop audience smacks of a group working quite hard to build a monument to their tenure. In my estimation this attitude is selfish, to say the least. The framers of this plan seem to be ignorant of the fact that the Southern California region is the Number One location for motor vehicles in the world. This data apparently was not among the criteria the group studied while formulating this pre-cursor to disaster! Consider this. just this morning I had an appointment at Foothill Blvd. and Carey Avenue. My planned route was to drive on Walnut Grove to the I-10 Eastbound then to Carey then proceed North to Foothill. My home is on Zerelda Street and is located one short mile North of the I-10. The drive time to the freeway, from my home, was IS minutes! Robert Falcon mydocs Rsmd Pluming Dept-lttr 0 0 We must not allow fewer parking spaces than is allowed under our current code. Less parking spaces does not mean tenants will have fewer cars, only that they will have to park on the street and make it more difficult for everyone else to find parking for themselves and visitors. I have seen businesses forced to close or move because of inadequate parking, parking guards in shopping center lots to restrict parking for major tenants. It may be cheaper to initially put in fewer parking spaces, but less parking lowers the future value of that property and the surrounding neighborhood. Only a builder who disposes of the property immediately would benefit. All business tenants, renters, or long term owners would be losers. What are you going to do about the parking problem you will certainly create? You can't bury your heads in the sand like an Ostrich and pretend there will be no problem from additional cars parked on the street. You could make all streets one way and allow head in parking. What is your plan for parking? I don't want my guests to have to park a quarter of a mile or more away from my house. Sidney Rubinstein 9026 Guess St. Rosemead, CA 91770 Received by Planning Division Dat 1~- Z 0 9 ~z Ae~ AIt, 1 ' V }y,~ ^/e~L~~~% ~LL4i~ J 406 e4A~.Zd-) AO e7u, Received by ell- Planning Division/ y ~o lei~ Data ;U1 z l o 7,70 0 • Page 1 of 1 Matt Everling From: Michael Saccaro [sacsuperior@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:17 PM To: Matt Everling Subject: Changes to The City General Plan Dear Matt, I am opposed to the proposed changes to the city general plan. The addition of mixed use and higher density projects to Rosemead will only add to the traffic and parking problems the city already has. Condominium projects only have fixed number of parking spaces. The pattern of Rosemead residents is that each property has three or more cars per house with only one or two parking spaces. They will either widen their driveways, park on the lawn or park on the street. With condominiums, there is no way to increase parking, therefore they will have to park on the already overcrowded streets. As expressed by the residents at the meeting, we are happy with the community as it is. Why do we want to have our city look like other cities? Michael A. Saccaro 3608 Chariette Ave. Rosemead, CA 2/13/2008 Draft General Plan Comments Received by Planning Division 20 February 2008 Honorable Members of the City Council and City Staff, Please find below some of my thoughts and concerns regarding the Draft General Plan. For brevity's sake I am limiting myself to referenced, bulleted comments. * I didn't see a particularly appropriate place to mention this within the Plan, but I would strongly suggest that the City aggressively pursue the production and use of multilingual (English, Chinese, Vietnamese, Spanish) resources, especially for regulatory and safety issues, but also for general outreach and education/awareness campaigns. We've made some great strides, and there are some excellent ideas in this new Plan, but in order for them to work, we need to ensure that everyone knows what's going on. * One other general thought: please ensure that the revamped City Website has as much expansion and multimedia capability as possible, and give careful consideration to putting as much information as possible on the site. Anything available in print from the City, whether it is regulations, event info, City Council agendas and minutes or promotional materials, should be available on the Website. Information is a vitally important part of our infrastructure, and the Web's potential for fiscal, environmental and logistical efficiency in dissemination of that information should not be overlooked. * This Plan has some excellent ideas for mixed-use features and general economic development within the city, with the stated goal of allowing residents to dine and shop in the city. I think this is great, and that the plan will go a long way towards achieving that. However, one important element has been missed: entertainment. We have NO family entertainment in the city. And if you are trying to build a city center, that is a very important element that should be included in any city center. I suggest that either the center directly across from city hall, or the north segment of Valley between Ivar and Rosemead would be an excellent location for such a designation; failing those, the lot on the northeast corner of Valley and Temple City would be a great alternative. As far as what to put there, theatres or a performing arts center would be at the top of my wish list; others may have better ideas. But we need entertainment. * p2-1 5: Per Policy 1.6, 1 am not sure how you would implement this, but I think this is an excellent idea; I request that some teeth be put into this. Some neighborhoods -Marshall between Rosemead and Rio Hondo comes to mind -are perhaps too far gone to preserve, but there are still a number of streets around the city that still have primarily well-kept, modestly-scaled (2000 sq ft or less) single-family homes. I strongly urge you to take action to preserve the traditional character of these neighborhoods. * p2-22: I think Table 2-3 significantly underestimates the population impact of these uses. We have close to 60,000 people now, with no mixed use; adding that in and assuming a 70% occupancy level would easily push the population past 70,000. Properly distributed and allowed for, that is not necessarily a bad thing, but I think these numbers and those used in the subsequent EIR should more closely reflect -and make plans to accomodate -what would actually happen. • 0 * p2-23: Please amend Action 1.3 to say "Use zoning regulations and design guidelines to require that new residential development use detailed architectural articulations, and to provide adequate privacy and buffering between lower density residential uses and higher-density residential or non-residential ones. On Action 1.4, please amend the last sentence of bullet point one to say "These neighborhoods should be maintained through continued code enforcement; new development should be designed to respect existing setbacks, architectural style and materials, scale, etc. (Ref. my comments on Policy 1.6.) * p2-24, Action 1.7: This is a wonderful idea; please be as detailed as possible when doing so. * p3-21, Figure 3-4:1 support these redesignations; many of the roads are de-facto at that level already and the adjustments that are planned with the redesignation should improve traffic flow. * p3-25, Table 3-6: For some of these, in consideration of local businesses, creation of extra lanes via peak period parking restrictions might be more appropriate. * p3-26, Figure 3-5: 1 strongly support signal synchronization, and the relinquishment of Rosemead Blvd to the City as a means to facilitate that. I likewise suggest that the City look into phased permissive signalling as a means of improving flow at many of these intersections. * p3-30: Improving the transit system -including encouraging the use of El Monte's Metrolink station and working with Metro to increase service on Valley -should be a priority. * p3-31:1 strongly support a truck route study as a partial means of reducing or eliminating truck intrusions on residential neighborhoods. In the meantime, I request that a more aggressive stance be taken on enforcing violations of existing truck prohibitions. * p3-37: For Action 2. 1, please add the phrase "Require developers to pay a fee to the City for mitigation of traffic impacts, such as road improvements/modifications or the construction and maintenance of public parking structures." * p3-38, Action 3.2: Any such permit programs should allow a reasonable number of free permits for residents of such streets. Action 4.1: As state law may at times make this difficult, I recommend that the Planning Department be encouraged to use Conditions of Approval as they apply to variances and similar requests as a means of achieving this. The City may not be able to do this straight out, but the moment they need any special permission (such as a zone change or variance), supplying the extra parking spaces the City deems necessary can be made a condition of granting such permission. * p4-10, Figure 4-2: Please remove the mixed-use designation on Hart between Marshall and Ramona. The triangle at the intersection of Mission and Valley is too small to support high-density mixed-use, and should be redesignated as standard (0-30) mixed use or kept as commercial. Until the City has a better idea of the impact of the other mixed-use projects, their mitigation measures and the circulation improvement plans, I request that high-density mixed use be generally limited to within the planned downtown central business district. I also feel that steps should be taken to moderate the pace of these developments in given areas, so • 0 that impacts can be assessed and adjustments can be made, possibly including restrictions on new projects where necessary. * Greenspace, p5-10-1 1: Please add a policy to encourage evening watering to maximize water absorption, expand the use of moisture sensor-based irrigation at City facilities, and require all new or newly-improved developments to install and use moisture sensors to eliminate unnecessary watering. There are few things more annoying in time of drought than seeing sprinklers running during or right after rainfall. * Water Consumption and Quality, pS-12-13: Please strengthen the wording in Policy 3.4 to aggressively promote stormwater education among the residents, contractors, and businesses, particularly critical sources such as restaurants, retail gas outlets and automotive maintenance facilities; and to likewise more aggressively enforce existing regulations, particularly as they pertain to critical sources and contractors. The latter is a special concern with all the new development that appears slated for our city in the near future. I have personally called in several violations, and have seen remnants of dozens more all over the city. Most people don't know to call and I have neverseen the County patrolling, so the City needs to be more proactive in getting Code Enforcement to go out there, find incidents as they occur and require cleanup. Please also consider looking into new materials for City use, such as porous concrete that can reduce runoff. * AirQuality and Energy Conservation, p5-13-15: Reword Policy 4.4 to require energy-saving designs and features into new and refurbished buildings that the City has approval rights for. Please add a new policy that high-mileage and/or low-emission vehicles shall be given priority wherever possible when updating the City fleet. * p5-19, Goal 2: If possible, please consider acquiring the small triangle of land on the SW corner of Walnut Grove and Rush from SCE for use as a mini-park. What's there now is ugly and does no one any good. * p5-19, Action 2.4: Please consider requiring removal of illegally-installed concrete in lawn spaces on residences, or at least sending out multilingual warnings that all future such installations will have to be removed at the propety owner's expense. Likewise, consider requiring removal of such installations as a condition for City approval of building modifications/improvements. * p5-20, Action 3.3: 1 think this fairly well covered by RMC Chapter 13.16; as noted above, the main problems appear to be lack of education and enforcement. Action 3.4 is an excellent idea and could easily be included in the multilingual education program suggested above. * Geologic, Seismic and Flood Conditions: Please codify (as part of the standard COAs) a continuance of the City's ongoing efforts to require all current projects to have proper studies done and appropriate documentation of such filed prior to commencement of construction. Likewise, consider requiring those found to have failed to do so to halt construction until such studies are done and any necessary design modifications made, especiallyfor mixed-use projects where people will be living. Lastly, per Action 1.2, please consider a seismic evaluation and (likely) retrofit for City Hall and other key City buildings in the near future. A remodeled council chambers and modernized communications and records don't mean much if the whole building comes down. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, L s Brian Lewin 0 9501 E. Ralph St. Rosemead, CA 91770-2112 a • Matt Everling Page 1 of 1 From: Brian Saeki Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:12 AM To: Matt Everling Subject: FW: Comments on General Plan 8^166 Ja0k City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 (626) 569-2157 Telephone (626) 307-9218 Fax From: Polly Low Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:04 AM To: Brian Saeki Cc: Oliver Chi Subject: Comments on General Plan Here are my comments: 1. All commercial and industrial zoned properties along the east/west arterials (Valley and Garvey) be included in the mixed use GP designation with the ability to build up to 45 units per acre. 2. All properties currently proposed to be included in the mixed use GP designation along the north/south arterials (Rosemead, Walnut Grove, San Gabriel) be able to build up to 35 units per acre. 3. Remove the commercial/industrial mixed use designation. 4. Change medium density residential designation in the southwest portion of the City to low density. Polly Low Councilmember City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770 Te I e I phon e: 626-569-2100 Email address: low cityofrosemead.org 2/21 /2008 From the desk of.... Margaret Clark, Councilwoman City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Blvd, Rosemead, CA 91770 626-288-7308 To my colleagues on the Rosemead City Council: I am submitting the enclosed packet for the agenda item dealing with the General Plan. It represents several hundred residents who returned the cards in opposition to, the change in density for the mixed used designation. In order to save staff time in copying as well as paper, I have listed the names of those who returned the cards and only copied the originals of those who put additional comments on the cards. Sincerely, Maggie Clark ATTENTION ROfjkt An CITY T.C. -mayor o it ran, ounc embers Jo Nunez & Polly Low IIWE DO NOT SUPPORT THE CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO ALLOW MORE DENSITY WE HAVE ENOUGH T®C CONGESTION, AIR POLLUTION AND POPULATION WITHOUT BUILDING 3, 4 & 5 STORYTORY- BUMD'bq'G PLEASE DO NOT AMEND THE CITY GENERAL PLAN! p.-==am~ Name ~t e e cf /~lt'O is Tm ~a= ~~~7`T Address &O y /`7a ~s lie L G S7eee 7- city Te e Q~ State C4 f Foior« Zip r z 2c0 Phone A,r, I TnAY! WYE QUR NEIGHBORHOODS. Pa'tor by eeoomm~o ESnvisr~srereiar~ 3109 N. Prospect Ave, Rosemead, CA 91770 LD. # 1239976 e onTD Ito O'!'Ior T~ ~ p ~J~B 8 s C d ATTENTION ROSEN E"'-CITY COUNCIL Mayor John Tran; Coundlmembers John Nunez & Polly Low IIWWE DO NOT SUPPORT THE CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO ALLOW MORE DENSITY WE HAVE ENOUGH TRAFFIC CONGESTION, AIR POLLUTION AND POPULATION......: WITHOUT BUILDING 3,4 & 5 STORY BUILDINGS. PLEASE O NOT THE CITY GENERAL PLAN! ' 00 Name • 7 _ _ Address V qty ~ S~ ~ 91 ~~a Phonei E- ACT TbDXY! SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. Paid for by the Committee to Re-Elect Margaret Clark 3109 N. Prospect Ave, Rosemead, CA 91770 I.D. # 1239976 P TTE oN ROSEMEAD CITY COUNcrL Mayor John Iran, CouncUmembeas John Nunez & Polly Low - - VWX DO NOT SUPPORTS CHANGES TO THE G'EIV MAL PLAN TO ALLOW MORE DENMTY Phone E-Mail =ACT TODAY! SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD 1. Ssl•~i Padfw by ascwm etDRwm *p&w neK]Qk ~~il ~a~ 1e 31099N/rioepe -A.a,R=mew%C&917M 6 rte. d4 1%4- 43 CITY COUNCIL Jahn liras, x labu Peer & M- M Tet - ~I;+'_I~'~,~~~s`1+.7':i':~~J;c7~<~'t t.~~~~ait:.~~ ~t~ _a1~3~'?.,:'~TTO~L.I.UWMOBEY wS HAVS ZNOUM TR&"JfG. 'GE olds &m FoLA_xtilfox1..ft'x? `mot `BFI. E. 6i T wmiQUIX 1W DFYG;% 4ALS STORY BUH MGH. ]~j ~-L~~-..~~A#'s~~~a j E t,.t~~,s. .j ~-E ~ t~. 1 ♦ it z y~ 7 } 5 ti t ACS 0S A A ✓ city .40,mSe w,-e j*.W - --sty eA 9 i 7 7 d Phone E-Mail RHOODS ~~~~SIPY6ik~••c°.`+~'d^.SLT Catif.f_ 31W K PtospeetAve., RwMmm4 CA 91779 ATTENTION ROSEM EAD CITY CI Mayor John Tran, Councilmembers John Nunez & 11WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO WE HAVE ENOUGE1 TRAMOWNGESTION, AIR POLLUTION AND PC BUH,DING-39 4 &,5STORY BUILDINGS- :PLEASE DO NOT AMEND THE CITY GENERAL fCIL Low MORE DENSITY r Phont n-mau ACT TODAY! SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. Paid for by the Committee to Re-Fled Mint Clark L n 3109 N. Prospect Ave., R CA 91770 LD. # 1239976 / ATTENTION ROSEMEAD CITY 0 Mayor John Tran, CouncHmembers John Nunez & UWE DO NOT SUPPORT THE CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO WE HAVE ENOUGH TRAFFIC CONGESTION, AIR POUTION AND Pd WITHOUT BUILDING 3,4 & 5 STORY BUILDINGS. 1 PLEASE DO NOT AMEND THE CITY GENERAL e Address U City Ws~22d1U State Phones E-mail ACT TODAY! SAVE OUR NEIGHBOI Paid for by the Committee to Re-Elect Margaret Clark 3109 N. ProspectAve., Rosemead, CA 91770 LD. # 1239976 [CIL Low MORE DENSITY 76 °I/ '7 70 • 0 ATTENTION ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL Mayor John Tran, Councilmembers John Nunez & Polly Low I/WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO ALLOW MORE DENSITY WE HAVE ENOUGH TRAFFIC CONGESTION, AIR POLLUTION AND POPULATION WITHOUT BUILDING 3,4 & 5 STORY BUILDINGS. PLEASE DO NOT AMEND THE CITY GENERAL PLAN! Name 46e /sort 0S0,2 l& C ItlAt4 ~SVdei~ 57A.--dza Dsy/2:6 ,3,2/"9'1 (/SOQ f/rev) Y r ~ ve so/1; Address 27YT,./ L~e~fc~sL/9~~ (~~ua meal/~zea:tl¢~e~v~7`eye~ City _--a 0Se rt a.a& State ef.a . Zip / 770 Phonc(2~ 2s;j 2g-`/S%y E-Mail NE Lc:fo 4S K &v,o «rt- ACT TODAY! SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. Paid for by the Committee to Re-Elect Margaret Clark 3109 N. Prospect Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770 , I.D. # 1239976 ATTENTION ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL Mayor John Tran, Councilmembers John Nunez & Polly Low I/WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO ALLOW MORE DENSITY WE HAVE ENOUGH TRAFFIC CONGESTION, AIR POLLUTION AND POPULATION WITHOUT BUILDING 3,4 & 5 STORY BUILDINGS. PLEASE DO NOT AMEND THE CITY GENERAL PLAN! Address -T c 2,, 2 r. jFft%-&f Z S o /u D- I - City R ~`~GV• wZi ~ State CA _ Zip a I -77L--"' PhonetOZ/a 30 7 D Q7 :5 E-Mail ? V,/kU S L. F2 (aJ56L. (2b 6, ACT TODAY! SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. 1 L D ST`m ' R~`J t~ F~ t Paid for by the Committee to Re-Elect Margaret Clark 3109 N. Prospect Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770 ~D 5 • I.D. # 1239976 ATTENTION ROSEME- ITV OL _ Mayor John Tran, Councilmembers J `hu 1~Tunez & Polly I/WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO ALLOW MORE DENSITY WE HAVE ENOUGH TRAFFIC CONGESTION, AIR POLLUTION AND POPULATION WITHOUT BUILDING 3,4 & 5 STORY RINGS. PLEASE DO NOT AMEND THE CITY GENERAL PLAN! ol- Address Phone Coa~~~ Mail ACT TODAY! SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. Paid for by the Committee to Re-Elect Margaret Clark 3109 N. Prospect Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770 p I.D. # 1239976 /t. Aze& ~ ATTENTION ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL Mayor John Tran, Councilmembers John Nunez & Polly Low I/WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO ALLOW MORE DENSITY WE HAVE ENOUGH TRAFFIC CONGESTION, AIR POLLUTION AND POPULATION WITHOUT BUILDING 3,4 & 5 STORY BUILDINGS. PLEASE DO NOT AMEND THE CITY GENERAL PLAN! NarneL NOp Y I rrt~r~:~ u - Address_3 8 Q 7) l PfI L City^CO,r,Dnd / 9/77D State h Zip. Phone U b _~989_2b,57 E-Ma -W .P -Ra ve ~'ylou D J ACT T AY! ~4, State (L/ Zip q/ 7 z~ poPPro, pokcflLata71 agr~ ~0>7 ror7 4N SAVE OUR IGHBORHOODS. Paid for by the Committee to Re-Elect Margaret Clark 3109 N. Prospect Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770 I.D. # 1239976 returned cards ntonio_Cortez & Mary Rome Esperanza & Michael _ . - - - , Jarrar Vy M ai P La ng ha m ,T o m & Tra ---n-- Martha- - - - -----.:Ayala Uga T. Tat 'Quad Norbert& Eshter - - - - Gutier - Margaret - - - - Evans Bette & Kristine hitney & Annie A _ _ Albert ohn & Ofelia Felix Richard &J a net ry A. rad V. e n ik & Carmelita Ired & Mrs. Arturo garet e 4ael _ aie & Wavne m & Gloria ng Man ig Chu Ge & Xin r Mto tali - Louise & Ramon Hue ;7428 Whitmore St - 2349 N. Kelbum Ave ;4226 Arica Ave 7520 Whitmore St 3538 Rio Hondo Ave 7515 Whitmore St 8732 E. Grand Ave 9423 De Adalena - - '4116 Bartlett Ave - - - - - ,8732 Olney St _ '9051 Newby Ave :3638 Delta Ave •9043 Steele St - - 4504 N. Ivar Ave 7512 Whitmore St ;3638 N. Earle Ave 2712 N. New Ave 8434 Dorothy St „ - 4535 N. BartlettAve _ 8626 De Adalena St 34475 N. Delta Ave 4727 N. Muscatel 3908 Muscatel Ave _;9131 E. Evansporf Dc !3802 N. Brookline 4334 Bartlett Ave 4501 Halkett Ave 7946 E. Hershey St '2473 N. Del Mar '8928 Whitmore St ,3147 Del Mar #B ;4111 N. Loma Ave '9151 Marshall 19527 Guess St _9045 Evansport Dr - 4549 N. Bartlett _Ave - - `2729 Lindy Ave - i3443 Eckhart 'Robles 3313 Stallo Ave !Jaffer `4417 Dubonnet Ave '3136 Bartlett Ave - - IDang- - - - 77513 Whitmore St 'a Pannayakosol - 19367 E. Glendon Way- ;Fisher '8334 Park St _ _ r omoso 3903 Earle Ave 2/21/2008 Page 1 returned cards • First Name Last Name Address Anne Bedoy ;8533 Artson St Frank 'Aragon - ;7946 E. Hershey St oe & Donna - Maslach - 9448 E. Ralph St rmrda Desbrow & Geo a - Estrada - - - ood Dr 3356 Eartsw r Margaret & Antonio - - Manzano - - - - . !4610 N. Ivar Ave Darlene . . _ Cravea 8731 Zerelda St Dominic, Barbara, & Steven - Baracchini . . 4515 Halkett Ave ak & Margie - Kohatsu yke Ave ,44743 Fend Floyd L. - - Carlton - , - 3052 Burton Ave Margaret ----i-- :Bradt - 4422 Walnut Grove Ave Juan & Zoila Cordon _ '3034 N. Charlotte Ave Dorothy M. - _ ;Gabler - - 3526 Ellis Lane-- uan & Estela _ ;Morales 3228 He Iis Ave 0. ;Barela ;8615 E. Olney St Dennis & Marianne McDonald 8810 Olney St Susan Manfredi 9060 De Adalena ennie Borenback 14508 N. IvarAv Henry - - ;Torres 3849 Brookline Ave - - Mc & Mr sRobert 1 - - - - 'Webster '3214 N Evelyn Ave 'i ames & Barbara ;Queen '8739 Ralph St David M & Myrna - ',Brown ;9309 Marshall St amen & Flo Kobashigawa 3731 N. Greendale Ave airs & Guadalupe Calderon !8702 Mission Dr Norman B Smith ;3602 Rio Hondo Ave Dominick & Gloria - Fenvlli - '8718 Steele St nne C. Barnes '4636 Fendyke Ave Mrs. Renee R. Benz - 3208 Leybum Dr Dorothy M. _ 'Bond 14544 Sultana Ave Fernando & Elba Caballero ;8902 Nevada Ave Nick Lagalante 3817 N. Hart Ave Gladys Newkirk 8400 Grand Ave Apt 2 rudyM. - Ave 3721 Brookline u _ nthony - - - rJayme _ _ 3120 N. Isabel Ave - -a ntonio - Morales Jr. _8610 E. Mission Dr Joan Kyle Glenn & Edna _ - Clanton 13244 Le bum Dr melia & Stua_R ;'Caswell _ 8844 Guess St Lemon 8730 E. Marshall St ohn & Alice Heun 13242 N. Rockhold Ave ohn &Y ol and a _ Alvarez 9115 Steele S.t enifer - - - - - - Lorusso oruss 8624 E. Rio Dell - - D_ennis - - - - ;Barry - 9001 Hershey St Lynn & Jacqueline Evans ,9619 Steele St Robert & Rita 'Bona arte 9027 Evansport Dr Frank 'Renwick ;3919 Rosemead BI ary (House _I r - - 9623 Steele e St , - - Conroe :Vasquez ,3317 Alanreed Ave 2/21/2008 Page 2 returned cards Ernest & Gloria - - Eart & Jean Louie & Betty - im & Rose-Lee Mr. & Mrs. Glen alter & A ni Enrique & Jenny - Michael & Cynthia Mr. & Mrs Ronald Kenneth & Carmen - - Chester & Maryanne K_athry nA. teve _ - Magdalena _ Robert & Fannie - _ - Laura James - - - - Lawrence Mike & Aida Alice Mrs. Agnes Kenneth M. Terry & Mary Ellen Sharon Joe Jay & Cynthia Elida G. Andrew & Karen_ Carlos & Cheryl Jennie - - - John-&- Barbara John & Dawn_ - Alberta Gary & Kathie Leslie & Christine Maroaret & John Ruiz & Fan :Valenzuela 0 Strathmore Ave '8 Dubonnet Ave 2 Burton Ave 2 Earle Ave 8251 Park St 3214 lvar A ve _ 3720 Brookline Ave ;i 4504 Sultana Ave 3234 N. Walnut Grove Av; X237 Rio Dell St 3460 Steele St _4 3235 Steele St 3400 Grand Ave 3808 Earle Ave 3705 Loftus Ave 3203 Ralph St : 3755 Ralph St 3157 Muscatel Av e _ 3342 Steele St _ _ r 3527 Ellis Lane 4 N. Burton Ave 2 Melrose Ave. 6 Highcliff St ~j 1 Lawrence - 1 E. Marshall St 3 Bartlett Ave 9 Walnut Grove Ave., 1 Gladys Ave 1 N. Wanut Grove Av 3 Olney St 1 Barrette Ave iBrammer ;3506 Muscatel Cir ;Golden 3560 Lashbrook Ave Lacesella 1186 Walnut Grove Ave # 'Harmon 9340 De Adalena Thimons ;9109 Kahns Dr. Jackson _ 3923 Gernert St ;Guzman .8638 Olney St La Rosa 8712 Loftus Dr. Valentine 4515 N. Walnut Grove Ad Rin is - 9078 Whitmore St Telles 9401 Pitkin St 'Gee '8730 Faircrest Dr umen Jr. ;Nava Vito 2/21/2008 Page 3 returned cards Name James & Esther ;Hankins 8606 E. Zerelda St Joseph & Marilyn__ :Mere nda 471,2 Halkett Ave _ Mr. & Mrs. Shawn _ _ -Davis 9043 Guess St Neal & Beverly ,Van Fossen 18538 Wells St Mary & Rafael Cardenas 3736 Ellis Lane Lois 'Hopkins j4225 Rio Hondo Ave liomca Perez & Steve Robert Carmen Cantrell 9109 Guess St Richard & Gloria r Audet 8707E Ralph St er y& Lillian _ _ - ;Wilson ;3823 Delta Ave ;Tony & Elva B. 'Martinez - i-4-1-9--L.- 8419 E. Norwood PI - Man-- uel & Rosa- _ 'Roybal --7- ,'386-3- N.Delta Ave _ Mauro Aguilar 4422 N .Delta Av Joan Hunter '8579 E.Village Lane Betty, Gary, & Daniel Metz 9357 Guess St Abel Macias & Judy jCardenas '8832 Lawrence St _ Donald R. ;Tutor 4226 Encinda Ave Jean ;Hall 3655 N. Muscatel Ave Howard E. Mattem _ 3114 N- Jackson Ave - - - Henry, r . - -,Tse - _,1905 N Avinger Oc - Maria E. _ _ - - - 'Barrera - - _:7901 Dorothy St Lydia,Frank & Alex - ;Maier '2650 N. Willard Ave Esther - - - - jRamirez 2657 Willard Ave ._.-.lix ix---a --&-Alma Fe ';S _...-a nch-----e._z ......__lnu._....t--Grove Av-- 2744 Wa Juan Mo_rales_ & Nadia - Garcia :2746 Walnut Grove Av Felix (Morales - - - 2744 Walnut Grove Av Soma Sonia - 'Suarez . 3235 Jackson Ave Alejandro Ramirez - 3017 Langford PI - Emestine :Bacio `2652 Willard Ave Angelina ;Gutierrez 2738 1/2 Walnut Grove A Dieanna Sandoval & Valentin - !Guzman - - :7412 Toll Dr La Paloma Bakery 2249 N. San Gabriel BI Carmen & Marta :Resendez ,3334 Muscatel Ave Maria & Marie Valdez 12556 N. Delta Ave Teresa Flores 2310 N. Falling Leaf Ave - - - - - - Melissare i '3408 Eariswood - - Pablo Alvarado ;7819 Garvey Ave Juana O. Meza 3-313 Chadotte Ave _ Sylvia 1Frescas 34361varAve Manuel Rodriguez 8334 Whitmore St - Anna Har owe,L nn Cason,Brian - - - - - - Anton - :9243 Marshall St - - Paul - - Lee 4524 N. Bartlett Ave Robin Fruth & Lillian Cristler 9527 E. Marshall St Maggie Benkez and Famil 4105 Claudia Ave Ira: Jonny, Juan ___1 Lopez 8402 Olney St _ La - !B&wns - - ,4312 Encinita. Raymond, Jean, & Diana ':Frost 3418 Lindy St 2/21/2006 Page 4 0 0 returned cards First Name Last Name Address Donabelle Hopp - - ~4709 Walnut Grove Ave Nick & Celia - - - :Fabela - 8725 E. Guess St Greg,Nellie_Scott,am Ad - - - iGuerra - - - 3238 Isable Ave e Darrel W. - - - - Hausler .8922 E. Emerson PI Nelson,Gilma,Sandra,Bnan,Nicole - - 'Osodo . 2745 N. Del Mar Ave esus & Ruth 'Saenz :3302 Evelyn Ave Reed & Leota Barrett , '9604 Marshall St Pedro F. - Ramirez - - --0- . 954E. Steele St Norman & Ruth Rehbein 8318 Olney St ack & Harriet Turin 4733 N Willard Ave Pauline l Moore 4103 Rio Hondo Ave y! Celia & Richard - - - - 'Castro 4100 N. Sarilee Ave - - Edward & Linda - - ;Sebek - 4808 N Walnut Grove Av ! _ Kenneth & Donna Bauchman '4819 N. Walnut Grove Avi, Kelly & Eileen Howard 9260 Steele St Debbie tt ;Hostetter .3608 Linda Lee Ave Pa i !Travis 9418 Olney St Michele & Thomas ;Graydon 3 812 Muscatel Ave Margaret V. Gallegos _ _ _i, 8738 St ` 738 Scott Lorraine - Lutz '3149 Willard E mest & Clara _ Leyva 3326 Charlotte Ave jh _ Christme,Dermot,Marcul, &Paul I ;Chambers - '3658 Charlette Ave I: 2/21/2008 Page 5 WEDNESDAY, FEBR 6, 2008 con omuaum5. sec i . /~/^~u ; threatens to undermine 47 AD • / r M E~ duced in tthhaatsamed pro. depart- ment. u - i If the council approves the e' ■ proposal, developers subor J■_ dized housing would quality for. 1 new, more generous "density . bonuses" - permission to ( build projects with up to 35%_ ' more homes than zoning al- UI lows. inas a They would also get the chance to weaken other estab- lishedplanningrulesgoverning - r.building height, the number of - l new parking spaces required (and the amount of open space to ue • .that must accompany a new ! development project. h sll. That puts the city's politi- cians and planners. on a com- - Sion course with neighborhood velopurent projects. ( groups across the city who Neighborhood groups we°swee wao~ peons age of ththought eearrofCity H 1. seethe over LA. plan projects" taking advantage of ; gosesytop app on ae i- .the ease height Emits, if said. -But rened r don'toves, Goldberg olimentissues,PlanningDirec- ard. "Bu think it's rea- ; for Gail Goldberg, swept into developers include sonable to expect that that's; her post two years ago with a low-income units. gomgto.beaproblem." promise to update a dozen Homeowner groups across "community plans," docu- the city have grown increas- i ments that spell out the zoning By DAVID ZAE[NISZR , ingly sophisticated in their ef- VMMStafWraer forts to control development, ; and height limits for one or winning passage of pedestrian-l. more neighborhoods.. Neighborhood activists in districts;, historic . zones and i Goldberg invited residents the northeast San Fernando specific, plans ..that impose-? of San Pedro, Sylmar; South Los V thought they scored a more-restrictive.. rules on ! Angeles, West Los Angeles; victory in 1995, when neighborhoods, business drs Granada Hills andhalfadozen'. th ersuaded Los Angeles of- tncts and even a single boule-- other communities to;get in- ; ficials to approve zoning rules yard. - i volved in rewriting the commu- to keep new buildings on.Fbot- The density bonus plan year plans' saying the three- hill Boulevard from blocking . would trump most of those ef- i effort would give them the their hillside views. forts, according to planning of- opportunity to decide how But under a . proposal ficials. And it contains dozens their neighborhoods should : headed to the City Council to- of scenarios that would allow a ' grow - and make the planning day, those height restrictions real estate project to add hous- ; process less unpredictable. - limiting some buildings to 45 ing units or. gain other crones- That invitation will ringhol- feet and others to 33-could be sions--from the -Planning De--' low, some homeowner groups rolled back for real estate de- partment.. ; say, if developers receive the velo ers who promise to build In some cases, a develop- right to override limits laid out P p- i in those plans. condominiums or apartments meat company could increase:; :The purpose oPCOmmumty with at least a few units of low- the size of a residential project plans to provide certainty for income housing. - ifitincludesacluldcarefacilrty.. everyone, so. people, know The concept.infuriates Cin- In other cases, a builder could what's allowed and what's not dy Cleghom, president of the reduce the numbei: of parldng.l allowed," said Mike Eveloif Sunland-TujuHga Neighbor spaces ifthe project is occupied; president of the Tract 7260 hood Council, who said her by low-income seniors Homeowner Assn. "When-you neighborhood spent years While. neighborhood aetrv- have overrides, it removes the fighting for passage of the zon- ists fn * Hollywood, Sherman ingplan, which applies to Fdot- Oaks and Westwood are quick; son. certainty And and that doesn't creates seem confl t o o hill and several surrounding to criticize the proposal, busi-. i streets: - ness groups such as the Can -be good dbe planning." she has no "We have a plan with limits tral City Assn. and the Los An-: choice but to seek passage of and guidelines that was de- geles Area Chamber of Corn- i the new density rules, which veloped by people who are ac- merce are pressing hard for tive in the community," Clegh- passage.. (are part of an effort to comely oru, said. "They put a.lot of The chamber sent an e-mail.', with a state housing law that work and effort into it. And now to business advocates earlier {went into effect in 2005. The taw s hing comes along that this week pushing for thecoun I requires that every city and =hole init" cil.to act. And other business ` county create an "implement- proposal is the latest leaders say the proposal will fi ; mg ordinance". that rewards bid by the city's Planning De- nally help politicians stare, developers who make as few as 5% of partment to fuel the construc- down homeowner groups in the i able. a project's units afford- then of affordable housing fight over density. The new fn- I . F'(uthermore, she and other the wake of a housing boom centives for affordable housing planning officials predict the that caused thousands of rent- were devised under Senate Bill controlled apartments'- to be 1818, a 2004 law that sought to newincentiveswillbeusedonly demolished or converted to , make it easier to buildsubsi-. in atiny fraction 0fthecity's de- - dized ousmg.:. e w . re-.. quired cities to roll back their ; zoning "requirementseven rf that meant defying the wishes of their constituents. "The intent of thelawwas to ' give local officeholders more [political], cover to allow growth fn urban,areas, said Brendan.Huf ran, president and CEO of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., a San Fernando Valley based busy ness group that, favors the measure. In Los Angeles County's smaller suburbs, I elected officials -have ._.faced.i huge protests. from constitu-i ants upset over a single condo-. minium or apartment project. By comparison, Los Angeles has had great success in build- ing new, and frequently afford able, homes, said Jane, Blu-.J, menfeld,- director of citywide planning.i "Our city has notbeen a slacker. compared to most cit- ies in the state. We've done a• lot,"she said."Butwe have alet i of people and an awhil' lot of , poor people. So we have a more difficult time creating: afford- i able housing because the. in- comes are so much lower than in other parts of the state. Under the density bonus rules, the greater the number f of affordable housing units in a project; the more license a de- veloper has to exceed the city's zoning. If a development firm creates a significant number of { "very . low income.. housing units- for families that live on $28,000 per year or less=it can ; IOU back several rules at once.. Foes contend -that- the law d would exacerbate the city's housing cn=,,by replacing rent-controlled housing with new, . pricey condominiums: { And Los Angeles County Su- pervisor Zev Yaroslavsky has repeatedly,argued that , city planners' are trying' to "roll back the clock" to an era when. the city had fewer restrictions on development. - "They are attempting with the stroke of a pen, to bust the height limits on all of these J streets across town where peo- pie have fought,for,two- and i three-story height limits and- won," he said Even Goldberg has sounded less than enthusiastic about the measure; telling an audi- ence of developers and lobby- 1 ists three months ago that, the state housing,law takes plan- ning decisions out of the hands ~ of local elected officials. "Do I like these kinds of pro- grams? I t, she said "BUt;...l din we are-stutrying to come up.;l with an abling ordinance that will not please everyone -~1 david.zahniser@latimescom .'I s