The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 2B - General Plan Amendment 00-04- TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 20, 2002 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-04; REVISION -AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN TO MEET THE STATE REQUIREMENT FOR 1998-2005 PLANNING PERIOD, BACKGROUND The State of California mandates that Cities and Counties update and receive certification of their housing elements every five years. The City Council adopted Resolution 2000-66 on December 12, 2000, approving the update of the City's 1998-2005 Housing Element for the General Plan. This resolution also adopted a negative declaration determining that there would be no potential for a significant effect on the environment due to the adoption of this new housing element. On December 26, 2000, the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development (H.C.D.) received the approved Housing Element as adopted by the City Council. After this second round of review, H.C.D. generally approved the Element. However, they were still c concerned with how the City of Rosemead will successfully implement the strategy of producing housing units on underutilized parcels without consolidating contiguous lots. Staff reviewed the implementation policies of the General Plan to address this concern of how lot consolidation could be accomplished. It was determined that there are portions of the land use plan that are inconsistent with the zoning map. Two of these portions directly address "high density" residential housing districts. These areas are outlined in the zoning/general plan consistency map as area three and area eight (see exhibit D). Under the work program to achieve internal consistency between these land use maps, it is outlined in the Council approved 1987 General Plan that the City would initiate these zone changes to make them consistent. To date, this City initiated re-zoning that is called out for area three and eight has not taken place. With an inconsistency between the zoning and general plan, the City could be subject to legal challenges from the development community. With the zone changes that staff is now proposing this internal inconsistency problem will be resolved and H.C.D. will certify our Housing Element. COUNCIL, ,`%G NDA MAR 2 6 2002 ITEM No. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYSIS Area three (3) on the zoning/general plan consistency map, is generally bounded by Mission Drive on the north, Lawrence on the south, Ivar to the east and Muscatel to the west. However, staff would not recommend that all of these parcels be re-zoned. Many of these lots are already improved with above average housing units at medium and low densities. There are however, approximately twelve properties within the center of this area along Muscatel and Mission that could be appropriately re- zoned to R-3 designations. The existing land uses in this neighborhood are a mixture of office buildings, a residential P.U.D., multiple detached homes and single-family homes. Acloser analysis of the properties within this district will be completed in the future when staff moves forward with a staff initiated zone change study. Area eight (8) is generally bounded by Interstate 10 (San Bernardino Fwy) on the north, Walnut Grove Avenue on the west, R-1 zoned properties fronting Burton Avenue on the east and Garvey Avenue along the south. There are approximately thirty-three parcels within area number eight which would require a zone change from R-2 to R-3 to create consistency with the General Plan. Existing land uses in this area consist of a varying mix of densities from single-family homes on several lots, to multi-family uses ranging in size from four to six unit apartment complexes. The physical condition of many of the multi-family units along Walnut Grove Avenue is considered in need of substantial repair or replacement. The inconsistencies of these two geographical areas are due to General Plan designations of "high density", and underlying zoning designations of R-2; "Light Multi-Family Residential" on the City's zoning map. There is an inconsistency between these two designations because the General Plan defines "high density" as zero (0) to thirty (30) units per acre, whereas the R-2 density under the zoning ordinance allows for density at (0) to nine (9) units per acre. Under Chapter seven, "Housing Plan", section B, "Implementing Programs", subsection "Land Assemblage and Write-Downs" on page H-68, staff has added paragraph five (see exhibit `B"). This additional implementation strategy calls for the City to re-zone approximately seventeen acres within the next two years. This proposed zoning map change is however already outlined in the current land use element section of the Implementation Plan of the City's General Plan (see exhibit "D"). This zoning map revision was scheduled to take place during Phase II of the work program as outlined in the general plan (see exhibit D). It is staff s recommendation to initiate these changes within the next two years, to achieve consistency between the zoning map and general plan map land use designations of these two specified areas. The Planning Commission held a second public hearing to receive public input on these proposed revisions to the Housing Element. The Commission unanimously approved a recommendation of approval to the City Council. At such time that the City initiates these proposed zone changes in the future, public hearings with notification to all affected parties, will be scheduled before the Planning Commission and the City Council prior to the zone changes becoming effective. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the revised 2000-2005 Housing Element. Exhibits: A) Revised Housing Element, dated November 2000 B) Revised pages of Housing Element (H-68, 69) C) H.C.D. letter, dated November 28, 2001 D) Zoning/General Plan Consistency Map/Work Program E) Planning Commission Resolution 02-13 F) Planning Commission Minutes, March 4, 2002 G) City Council Report, December 12, 2000 ROSEMEAD GENERAL I AN LOUSING ELEMENT The City also obtained voter approval for Article 34 authority in November, 1991. This authorization allowed the RHDC to undertake the production of 200 units of i senior housing. As indicated above, 51 of these units have been constructed and 72 are currently proposed for construction. 0 h W The program goal is for the Agency to construct 72 units of affordable housing by 2002 and to fulfill its Article 34 authority to create the remaining 77 very low/low income units available under its authority by the end of the planning period. Land Assemblage and Write-Downs Rosemead will use both CDBG and redevelopment funds to write-down the cost of land for development of low and moderate-income housing. The intent of this program is to reduce land costs so that it becomes economically feasible for a private (usually non-profit) developer to build units that are affordable to low and moderate income households. Rosemead will make every effort to provide land write-downs for residential projects that set aside at least 20-percent of the units for lowand moderate- income households. The City, through the Redevelopment Agency, can assist in acquiring and assembling property, or subsidizing--on-site- and off-site:-•--- improvements as part of this program. - . As an example, the City has acquired a parcel through tax default. That parcel_ will be transferred to the Rosemead Housing Development :Corporation for " development, in accordance with the strategy listed below, "Non Profit Construction." The City is currently identifying additional properties in tax default and is also looking at foreclosed properties as a potential source of available land. The goal is to develop at least two affordable 'units for new home ownership within the planning period.. In addition, the City, will continue to implement zone changes to portions of the zoning map that are part of the City's long range planning programs. Specifically, the re-zoning of two areas outlined as Area 3 and Area 8 (see map in Appendix outlining these areas) to high density residential. Within the next two years the City will initiate these zone changes and then promote these two areas in addition to the remaining R-3 parcels outlined in the underutilized land table to affordable housing developers. The goal, is to promote and facilitate the development of affordable housing opportunities in these areas during the planning period using a variety of mechanisms including: 1) RFP's for "specific plans" on larger sites, including mixed use development, 2) requests for smaller scale projects by developers on these sites. As Rosemead is a completely built- out community, this is one of the few strategies that the City feels will accomplish the goal of re-use of land to affordable housing units, to be built by for-profit and non-profit developers. Although there are no recent examples of such zone change activity within the Community, the City is confident that by upzoning upwards of fifty parcels (approximately 17 Acres) to R-3 designations, the market will bear multi-family units., The greatest advantage that this strategy provides is contiguous parcels that are more easily consolidated into single parcels. Both of (11/1/00) H-68 November 2000 . I;pt#/ / ROSEMEAD GENERAL P' 4N HOUSING ELEMENT c O .ent_ofittieProposed units-to "qualrfying residents" (e.g., elderly). The ,17 acres included in Area three and eight, will be able to support at a V maximum 510 units without any density bonuses and 638 units if density Ill bonuses were to be granted on all projects. The City is committed to this re-use strategy and will monitor the success at one year intervals after the zone A changes are made: if the strategy appears to not produce a range of affordable housing units the City will look at additional strategies to meet the unit requirements under the RHNA calculation. Finally; the`potentialtfor'several other;mixed-use residential/retail project sites Nab currently exisf'i the `City within the current zoning designations. The City has identified 45 acres within the mixed use zoning designation that it is marketing and `is'°currently -meeting with interested developers. The City,. through the Rosemead' `Housing `Development = Corporation, will use available funding mechanisms to. assist- developers with land assemblage and construction of affordable units an&mixed level income unit Projects. Marketing is ongoing. Density Bonus' State law requires a City to either grant a density bonus of 25- percent :over'the maximum site density, along with one additional regulatory concession,;.or`provide other incentives 'of equivalent financial value based on the _ land cost `dwe. incrunit _if a developer dedicates: 20-percent of the proposed units to lower income households, 10 ercent of the proposed units-to very low income households, or 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 these areas exist today with an inconsistent mixture of substandard residential units ranging from 1 to 12 units per parcel. Once the zone changes are completed, staff will set up meetings with housing developers to review the individual parcels and further strategize how the City will facilitate specific projects with the mechanisms outlined within the housing element. This is intended'to'ensure that the housing development can be produced at a reduced cost. Developers seeking a density.bonus must enter into an affordable housing agreement with.the City to ensure continued affordability for a minimum of 30 years. Rents for affordable units cannot exceed 30-percent of the gross monthly income. This limit is subject to annual rent adjustments based on the tenants income. Rosemead will inform residential development applicants of density bonus opportunities in order to encourage development of privately sponsored affordable housing and will create a promotional handout for same. The City will distribute the handout to developers, across the counter at Planning and Building and Safety. In addition, it will be distributed to the Community Development Department for distribution to affordable housing developers. The City anticipates that the handout will be completed by June 2002, during the planning period. (11/1/00) H-69 November 2000 NOO-26-2001 15 56 HCD 91E 327 2643 P.02%03 DEPARTMENT OF ROUSING AN '.OMMTTNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Housing Policy Development OVSINC ? '11~0 I ron r1wd seec:. Swn: :30 E P. U. Rn3 957052 Z 7j1 • ~ Socmmcmo, CA 94257.7053 e. p1 v.l,rvf n. rnv Y O J - ~-I L) 313-3176 FAX: (916) 327-2643 ` November 28. 2001 Mr. Frank Tripepi, City Manager Ci!y of Rosemead - 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Dear Mr. Tripepi: - RE: Review of the City of Rosemead's Adopted Housing Element' Thank you for submitting the latest revisions to, Rosemead s ,housing element adopted - ; December 12, 2000, and received for our review August 30, 2001, along wtth(iacsurule and e-mail j, transmissions submitted on November 28,2001. The el m r- with revisions has been reyicwed. pursuant to Government Code Section 65555(h). We aze appreclauve of the assistance of Mr Brad. i , Ir~'- Johnson, Planning Director, and Ms. Lisa Baker,_the City's, c'onsultant'provIded-;punwzathe review - nroeess. Rosemead's adopted element, with the inclusion of draft revisions (dated Nove n&r.28,2001), now address the statutory requirements cited in car April 13, 2001-review-letter:',Th6*clefiient will be in full compliance with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the` GoVe=eEf `Codc) when - -:_rcadooted and submitted to this Department for review., We commend Ihe`Guy) for;,working diligently to develop programs to rezone sites to accommodate higghcr,eenstry-,development; and promote recycling/reuse of the identified underutilized R-3 zoned.sttes Such] efforts_hold . R.. significant promise in reducing infrastructure costs and increasing housing supply`and'affordabiliry. As discussed in our November 28 phone call with Mr. Johnson; our finding:of'corripliahce is based on the City's commitment to reevaluate the development potential of the identified underutilized R- 3 sites (as described on page 14-69 of the revisions), and if necessary provide-additional incentives that would encourage the development of these sites, or identify alternative sites commensurate with the remaining regional housing need. The City should utilize the required annual reporting process, which is required to be submitted to the Department, as a means to analyze their effectiveness in increasing housing opportunities for the City's residents. Again, we greatly appreciate the City's extra effort to develop a housing element that complies with State housing element law and are thankful for the insight and cooperation that Mr. Johnson and Ms. Baker provided during the course of our review. We wish Rosemead success in implementing its housing programs contained in the element and look forward to following the City's annual implementation progress, pursuant to Government Code Section 65400. If we can be of assistance in implementing the programs or policies of the element, or if you have any questions, please contact Don Thomas, of our staff, at (916) 445-5854. Ax C NDO-22-2001 15:57 HCD A r. Frank Tripepi, City Manabcr Page 2 915 327 2543 P.03i03 In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and organizations listed below. Sincerely, Cathy l? Deputy D. :reswell rector ord Johnson, Planning Director Baker, Baker Street ?associates Mark 'Stivers, Senate Committee on Housing & Community Development Catherine Ysrael, SupFi` in Deputy Attorney General, AG's Office ~Terry:Robens, Governors Office of Planning and Research f .Kiihbertey Deltinger, California Building Industry _Association Marcia Salkin, Califomta Association of Realtors x. "Marc'Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Rob Vleiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing Jehn Douglas,.AICP Civic Solutions t 5 Dara Schur, V✓estern Center on Law and Poverty Alex andeLAbbe, LawFFum of Richards, Watson Gershon Ruben Duran Law Fir; of TleuSeld, Jaffe & Levin. y s Carlyle VJ. Hall, Hall Phillips Law Firm. ;Fair Housing Council-of the San Fernando Valley ' Mark Johnson, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles , - Dennis Rockway, Legal.Aid Foundation of Long Beach Stephanie Knapik,.Westside Fair Housing Council Chancela Al-Mansour, Los Angeles County Neighborhood Legal Services Mihn Tran, Inland Counties Legal Services James A. Ragsdale, AICP Karen Warner, Cotton, Bridges & Associates David Booher, California Housing Council Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law Ana Mane Whitaker, California State University Pomona Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments Won Chang, Attorney at Law, Davis and Company Jacob Lich, Southern California Association of Governments mTn~ o ro 2.0 IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Land Use Element Implementation measures for land use policy are organized around the tools available that bear a direct relationship to the realization of adopted land use goals. These tools include the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the Municipal Code, Specific Plans for areas with unique situations, and the Capital Improvement Program. Zoning Ordinance The Zoning Ordinance is the:: ,'m`ost:". important tool for implementing the goals and policies'. contained in the--General _ Plan. If the Draft General Plan~,iis adopted as it is currently proposed, the Zoning Ordinance--'willhave ..to . be _ amended.-: to reflect both the proposed system ~"ofx cl"assifying use an ,the_ specific areas or, zones in -which 'they -care -allowed 4 To;. successfully implement the -..prop'o'sed~goals,and policies .of the:'_ _ General Plan;, the City-swill be required to make revisio~ s to the adopted zoning ordinance , The Implementation Program pro3ide's` fo° a five' year ,;`plan - ao• make the necessary revisions- to''the zdn_ng.:ordinance to insure . consistency between the ordinance''-arid the land use 'policies contained-'in -the-'General Plan This five year --planseparates'"" the work schedule into three.edistinct:'phases witfi t_e'"first phase, commencing from-the time ofxthe' adoption of the_General. Plan. _ The three phases are described5 aspfollows rs_ Phase I, - adoption of,"Gene al Plan.to end of'; first year }(12 months); Phase II - beginning of-second,-year to end of third year (24 months); and _ Phase III - beginning of fourth year to end of fifth year (24 months). At the completion of the five year implementation period, the entire General Plan will be re-evaluated by the City. If a significant number of inconsistencies remain, a second five year work program will be adopted. The specific areas that will require a revision will be the corresponding' zoning designation if consistency between the zoning ordinance and General Plan is to be achieved are identified below. The areas indicated below are identified by an "area number" which corresponds to the areas identified in Figure 1. IM-2 7/10/86 J00K#/J6/ r I® / qq11 e `=1 1 J ? 1 _I IL _ IL I_ 4 'emu' _ 3". ' moo L P ~ T t7,' 1 LI J_~f 4 ' ~1 11~ _~'fs 1_ ~~'--l ~l It r r ~ JI ~ r I II 1 IJ I~I 31 K r. c nrr or r rwrs ~ A ~ i0. 'a 1 l - LIM • it 1 t - • ~ ~ ' rte' 1 1110 r 'I 1 ' II r t.` I Ij~ 3. 1 11 r I It 1 , ro o `J \ J`. ''r y\. if \ 1 ~a 13 FIGURE 1 General Plan/Zoning Consistency Program City of Rosemead • \ General Plan COTTON/SELAND/ASSOCIATES i i. 'I i ' F IM-3 PHA CF i Area 2: R-2 to R-1 - Zone Change - Decrease in density Area 9: R-1 to M-1 - Zone Change - Change in use Area 10: R-11 and M-1 to C-M - Zone Change - Change in use Area 11All P-Parking zoned parcels to the appropriate zone PHASE iIl 1 and P I Area_3 ,u C to R-3 Zone Change - Change in use ~ ( , and in crease in density &,n 9tea4 M 1~to C-M one Change -Change in use _ grea'S M .1 to C-3 'one Change - Change:in use 1a:} Area _6 M 1 to C-3 oneChange, Change in. use -rea:7 11J M 1 to C=M Zone Change: - Change-in use ' Area 8 R`2-1to R-3 - Zone Change - Increase in density 4 - ---:PHASE-:III ~ _ _ • - - Area`1 ` R. 3 t6,:'R I - . Change;.- Zone. Decrease in. density , Areafl2" R toR-1 Zone Change - - Decrease. in.density_' _ Brea; 13 ' A `1 t6:.C-3 - Upon development - no time frame L r . I IM-4 5/28/87 I i'. 111 'll f;-- 1 •I,-,.( I - i ..11 RESOLUTION NO02`-l3 A RESOLUTION OF THE'PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS' ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. APPROVING GENERAL'PL'AN AMENDMENT 00-04, AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE' ROSEMEAD; GENERAL PLAN FOR THE i PLANNING PERIOD 2000-2'0'05. 11 i t , NI~Lft Tai L'tl 9i !1 7 . S 1 1tn ( , i I! i M1 d' WHEREAS`4Section,;65~88 oflthe Government Code of`Califomia requires local 1. h V , s ;PV 41 P . _ „i CI J 1 f 4 d '7.1!n: governments within tile :SOtithern CalifomiaA'ssociatton of Governments to revise their housing element every five years;,and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Department has completed a housing element update in order to meet the Regional Housing Needs'Assessmem (RHNA) for the 2000-2005 planning period; and WHEREAS, on October, 10, 2000, an initial study forGeneral Plan Amendment 00-04 was completed; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2002, ten (10) notices were posted in public areas in addition to a notice published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune noticing the environmental finding, the public comment period, and the time and place for a public hearing with the Planning Commission pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2002, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to General Plan Amendment 00-04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: . SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted. An initial study was, completed to analyze potential environmental impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study found that there would be no potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed update. As a result, a Negative Declaration has been adopted and the project may proceed without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS that General Plan Amendment 00-04 is consistent with goals and objectives for,'the City of Rosemead. This draft meets the requirements of Section 65588 of the California Governmenf Code. A relationship exists between the draft element and all other elements of the adopted general plan. This updated element provides su fficient analysis to show that Rosemead can meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment as set by the regional council of governments. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES General Plan Amendment 00-04, updating the Housing Element of the Rosemead General Plan for the 2000-2005 planning period. SECTION 4: The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL of General Plan :Amendment 00-04; amending the Housing Element of the General Plan. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on March 4, 2002, by the following vote: YES: LOI, ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARCON, HERRERA NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SECTION 6; The secretary sI~aP certify to;the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the aoplidaiitiand~t'iie-R-dsem6ad~Citv,Clerk.;t,' :t PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, this 18th day of March 2002. / w S l~l 2 i~4it ~~xl1`11 P 3 t v '.Wilham,Alarcon, Chairman jlYR Z,a 7pt(LI f~~~l~%r't P~i61ft§r7~~ xr' i t i,ir14 i). x'YY~9'r rl L1 3}f(tl! 4. r%h n. l~)i.S t,11 E.Y.~~,.• t -1;it1 P... i , 'j` Y ~ i , t( f. r' it Tx eZ~l Plt}~I r+.a(i ~~'r :'r 4t(r PI ,.•r tlr 'I- • ~ _ A r~i iPt o riiz?ri(i e MARCH 4, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 4. PUBLIC HEARING: ywide A. 2000-2005 ROSEMEAD HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE-Cit An update of the City of Rosemead's Housing Element setting forth the city's strategy to preserve and enhance the community's residential character, expand housing opportunities for all economic sectors, and provide guidance and direction for local government decision-making matters relating to housing. Presentation: Planning Director Johnson. Staff recommendation: RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. Questions from the commissioners to the staff: Commissioner Loi wished verification of the commercial regions within the discussed area number eight (8). Planning Director Johnson clarified that the commercially-implicated region would encompass only three (3) lots situated on the east side of Walnut Grove Avenue, between Ramona Boulevard and Garvey Avenue. Vice Chairman Alarcon indicated three (3) questions-whether the Housing Element update would come before the commission once more for final approval, whether this modification is a state or federally-mandated order, and the meaning of the term "bonus" as stipulated in exhibit B. Director Johnson responded affirmatively to the commission reappearance stating that tonight's "state-mandated" amendment would initiate zone changes over the next two (2) years; thereafter, a public hearing would be scheduled with all pertinent property owners notified accordingly. Moreover, the "bonus" refers to a state law incentive, whereby, a twenty-five percent (25%) density compensation would be awarded for allocating senior or low income qualifying homes. Chairman Alarcon opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: None. Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. There being no one further wishing to address the commission, Chairman Alarcon closed the public hearing segment for this project. (MO) Motion by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of the 2000-2005 Rosemead Housing Element. Vote results: YES: ALARCON, LOI, BREEN, ORTIZ, HERRERA NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chairman Alarcon declared said motion duly carried and so ordered B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-861-8606 East Garvey Avenue A request by Pauline Lu, dba "AP Liquor," for the transfer of ownership of an general (Type 21) ABC license in conjunction with a liquor store. Presentation: Staff recommendation: Applicant(s): Planning Director Johnson existing off-sale APPROVE-for a period of one (1) year,) subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." In the audience. IT `f TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2000 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-04 -AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN TO MEET THE STATE REQUIREMENT FOR 1998-2005 PLANNING PERIOD. I BACKGROUND General Plan Amendment 00-04 is an amendment to the Housing Element of the Rosemead General Plan to meet the State requirement for 1998-2005 planning period. Rosemead and all local jurisdictions are required by State law to complete a housing element update every five (5) years. The Housing Element provides analysis to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) as set by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). This analysis notes that the majority of potential housing development is through infill and recycling of lots. Staff finds that the element is able to meet the regional allocation numbers set by SLAG using the existing zoning standards. I DISCUSSION An initial study was completed on October 10, 2000. This study has been prepared in accordance with state and local environmental regulations to analyze the potential environmental impacts that could be created from the proposed project. I Staff finds that the proposed housing element will serve to reduce potential environmental impacts to a level of insignificance without eliminating business opportunity. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The study was noticed in 10 public locations and a locally I circulated newspaper, soliciting comments for more than a 30-day period prior to the Planning Commission hearing on November 20, 2000. 12 2000 i Rosemead City Council Decemberl12, 2000 Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment 00-04, adopt Resolution No. 2000-66. EXHIBITS. A. Letter to HCD, dated December 6, 2000 B. Letter from HCD, dated November 3, 2000 C. Draft Housing Element D. Environmental Analysis/Initial Study E. Staff Report, dated November 20, 2000 F. Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 20, 2000 G. Resolution No. 2000-66 :i MAYOR: ' MARGARET CLARK T `(!1 MAYOR PRO TEM: IAV T IMPERIAL 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • PO. BOX 399 COURCILMEMBERS: ROBERT W. BRUESCH ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 GARY A. TAYLOR TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100 1~~~ JOE VASOUEZ,+,. FAX (626) 307-9218 `,September 14, 2000 ,,Ms. Cathy Creswell. '.Acting Deputy Director Division of Housing Policy Development .',Department of Housing and Community "P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 Dear Ms. Creswell: "Enclosed for your review is the updated Development Housing Element of the Rosemead .:Plan. This draft document has been prepared in compliance with Article 10.6 California Government Code and was reviewed by our Planning Commission, ",to submission to your office. Upon completion of your review of this documei ,'element will be revised as necessary and submitted to our City Council for f ',,adoption. A copy of the final element will be forwarded to you upon adoption 1 ,,City Council. please contact me between 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, 569-2140 t~ 1 os,,!mcad or Ms. Lisa Baker, of Baker Street the for the nal the jay , at DEPARTMENT OF HOUSIN( ND COMMUNITY DEVELOPME?: Division of Housing Police Development 1800 Third Street, Suite 430 P. O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 h2' (916) 323-3176 FAx327-2643 November 3. 2000 Mr. Bradford W. Johnson; Planning Director City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valle), Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Dear Mr. Johnson: RE: Review of the City of Rosemead's Draft Housing Element Amendment Thank you for submitting Rosemead's draft housing element amendment, received for on September 19, 2000. As you know, we are required to review draft housing elements our findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). Our review was facilitated by our telephone conversation with you on October 23, 2000. and Appendix summarize the results of that conversation and our review. The draft housing element provides the basic framework for future residential dex Rosemead as well as the City's housing plan for the 2000-2005 planning period. Horn sections of the draft should be revised in order to comply with State housing element 10.6 of the Government Code). In particular, the element's programs should be expan demonstrate the City's commitment to address the housing needs of its residents, espe income households. This and other required changes are discussed in greater detail in Appendix. For your information, we have enclosed a brief description of new, and existing h Conlniu ity development programs admtmstered by the Department of Housing and Development (HCD) along with funding levels for the current fiscal year. We are pleas a historic increase in housing funds available though HCD. A number of the programs Jobs-Housing Balance Improvement Program, the CalHome Program and the Downtov Program are new and under current development. Please consult our homepage at for program information updates. In closing, we appreciate the input you provided during the review process. We would to provide any assistance necessary to facilitate the City's efforts to comply with State 1 would like to schedule a meeting or have any questions or concerns, please contact Don' our staff, at (916) 445-5854. 5INC yti Op 4.. W 30I=z< 0 ry~TY DEJE~ review report letter pment to r. certain (Article to better IN, lower- enclosed and to report Ich as the Rebound pleased If you mas, of Mr. Bradford Johnson, Planning Director Page'? In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding copies' of this letter to the persons and organizations listed below. Sincerely, 6J4~E6cvleo Cathy Creswell Acting eputy Director Enclosure cc: Lisa Baker, Baker Street Associates Catherine Ysrael, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Juan .Acosta, California Building Industry Association Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center Dara Schur,.Westem Center on Law and Poverty Michael G. Colantuono, Attorney at Law Carlyle W. Hall, Hall & Phillips Law Firm Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley Mark Johnson, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles Ana Marie Whitaker, California State University at Pomona Dennis Rockway, Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach David Booher. California Housing Council Stephanie Knapik, Westside Fair Housing Council Karen Warner, Cotton/Beland/Associates Joe Carreras, South California Association of Governments Tony Rodriguez, Neighborhood Legal Services Mona Tawatao, San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law Won Chang, Attorney at Law, Davis and Company APPENDIX Citv of Rosemead The following changes would bring Rosemead's housing element into compliance with Ar Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change we cite the supporting Government Code. A. Review and Revision 10.6 of the tion of the 1. Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and) progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element (Section 65588(a) and (b)). The review requirement is one' of the most important features of the element analysis will enable the City to evaluate its success in remedying substar conditions, conserving affordable housing, and providing housing opportunities groups, including lower-income households. We note that some of the prior housing enhancement and production program of 1996) were not accomplished (i.e., Low Interest Loan Program, the Rebate Handyman Program, and the Direct Housing Construction program). However, th proposing similar programs for the next planning period. The element should these programs will be strengthened to be more effective during the forthcot period. B. Housing Needs Resources and Constraints date. The d housing all income actives (June rogram, the City is again escribe how no planning 1. Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including sites having the i facilities and potential for redevelopnsent, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and publii sei-vices .to these sites (Section 65583(a)(3)). The draft element contains a parcel-by-parcel listing of vacant and underutilized sites within the Citv (Appendix). This section should be expanded to include the following: A description of the City's methodology for determining the actual builddut capacity of available sites and how these sites can accommodate the remaining regional housing need, especially for lower-income households. An indication of whether these sites (vacant and underutilized) have or could infrastructure capacity (e.g., water and sewer) to allow development to occu the current planning period. lave sufficient by the end of As indicated in Table 35 (page H-45) the City's reuse development strategy is account for the development of 815 dwelling units. Successful employment of this essential to the City in temps of its ability to meet the regional housing need (776 result, the element should be expanded to include the following: ed to is As a A description of existing uses of underutilized sites and an analysis of the Iviability of developing these sites with more intensive residential uses during the forthcoming planning period, including market conditions thai may affect recycling feasibility. An analysis of the City's past successes in implementing a reuse strategy and/or information retarding the City's incentives or regulatory concessions that would foster this type of development strategy. The element should also include a program to identify adequate sites for emergency shelters. The element notes (page H-65j that the City may amend is zoning ordinance to permit transitional housing in multifamily zones, as well asallow emergency shelters in commercial and industrial zones. The element should specifically commit the City to such zoning changes as well as describe how the City's conditional use permit process will encourage andlfacilitate the development of emergency shelters and transitional housing. 2. Analyae any special housing needs of elderly households (Section 65583(x)(6)). The element indicates that a total of 4,592 elderly persons reside in the City. The e ibment should be expanded to include the number of elderlyhonceholds, including an indication of tenure (i.e., owner/renter). Please refer to the attached 1990 CHAS data sheets. 3. Analyae potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, impi ovement, and, development of housing for all income levels, including -land use connols) and permit procedures (Section 65583(a)(4)). The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584. The element contains a listing of the basic development standards (setbacks, height', & parking) for the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 (PD) land use zones (Table 32, page H-43). Thislsection of the element should be expanded to include the following for each residential zone, as well as the PO zone: density ranges, minimum lot sizes, floor area ratio (F.A.R.) requirements; and a listing of permitted and conditionally permitted residential uses (i.e., single-family multifamily, mobilehomes, second units, and emergency shelters). In addition, the element should include an lanalysis of the impact of these standards upon the development of housing. I Of particular concern is the 2.5 spaces per unit parking requirement for multifamily uses. Table 34 (page H-44) provides an overview of the development permit timelines. The element should be expanded to include a more detailed description of the City's application processes in general. Of particular interest are the entitlement processes for second units, emergency shelters, and multifamily projects (not in the R-3 zone). Identify the specific hearing body (Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and/or City Council) and/or in!house review requirements, such as preapplication meetings. Also, are tentative parcel maps and tentative subdivision maps subject to the same processing procedures? C. According to the draft -element, implementation of the proposed programs will pro Vide for 304 rehabilitated units and 301 subsidized units, respectively. The element further indicates that there are no federally assisted, low-income units within the City at risk of converting toImarket rate housing by 2010. The quantified objectives (page H-71) should be expanded to include the number of new, rehabilitated, and conserved units by income category, as shown in the sample matrix. These objectives may include private activity as well as City planned activity. Qnintified Qbjectives 1 . The element should establish quantified objectives the mayinaum number of housing category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, conserved, or preserved over planning period of the element (Section 65583(c)). by income remaining Income Cateoor v New Construction Rehabilitation C onservation V erv Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above Moderate D. Houcino Programs 1. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate c the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,. includir rental housing, factory-built housing, ntobilehomes, housing for agriculture emergency shelters and transitional housing: Where the inventory of sites paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodat groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program sh sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily res right, including density and development standards that could accommodate arc feasibility of housing for very low- and low-income households (Section 65583(c)(. In an effort to increase new housing development, as well as foster more effic City's underutilized sites the element describes a number of land use and fina (pages 46 and 47). However, the program section of the element does not strategies. If these are existing or proposed programs, the element should i program actions that commit the City to initiate or continue implementation. zoning and nd encourage g multifamily I employees, pursuant to the need for dl provide foe dential use by 'facilitate the ient use of the I cina strategies eference these iclude specific lr. Also, depending on the results of a more detailed inventory (as requested in I element may need to include a program to identify. sites to accommodate housi income households. The City could chose to increase the available acreage of sites higher density development, develop and adopt regulatory tools that would foster use of the available sites (i.e., a mixed-use ordinance and require or provide underutilized sites to be developed to their full potential). B.2), the for lower- red for ,e efficient -ntives for 2. The housing element shall contain programs, which "assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low-and moderate-income households (Section 65583(c)(2)). Many of the programs in the element require revision to include more specifics regarding the City's role in implementation as well as stronger program objectives. Those programs of note include the following: The element notes that no density bonus units were developed in the prior planning period; yet this program remains unchanged. The element should specifically describe how Rosemead will be more proactive in terms of encouraging the use of density bonus provisions and infom7ing developers of the City's program. In additionl, the City's homeownership programs should more specifically describe the action steps necessary to implement each program, including timelines. To ensure consistency, this revised information should also be carried forward to Table 39. The element indicates that the Rosemead Housing Development Corporation (RHDC) is responsible for the management and construction of senior housing projects hocated in the City (pages H-.62 and H-63). As indicated in Program No. 9, the City "will support the formation of a non-profit corporation to facilitate the development and improvement of senior citizen and other low cost housing". Is it the City's intent to create another nonprofit housing group? If so, the program language should be expanded to include more specific information on the City's role in establishing this nonprofit, including the overall objective in terms of addressing the needs of the lower-income households. As a suggestion, the City may want to consider enlisting-the assistance of one of the many existing nonprofit housing associations located in Southern California (see the attached list). The element indicates that a significant percentage of the total households consist of large families (32.3°/x) and are also overcrowded (35.6%). The element further acknowledges that overcrowding is predominant in the City's rental house stock. However, the element is absent any specific programs that will address the need. The City]could include policies/programs that offer incentives (financial and administrative) that could encourage prospective developers to construct some larger (3 or 4 bedroom) dwelling units that are affordable to low-income residents, or target some of the rehabilitation programs to facilitate room additions. 3. The housing element shall contain programs that address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, j nd development of housing (Section 65583(e)(3)). Depending on the results of the analysis of governmental constraints (see B.3), the element may need to include programs to mitigate or eliminate any identifi ed•constraints. 1 I E., Public Partici an lion Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the eli ment shall describe this effort (Section 65583(c)). We note that the City's public outreach efforts are focused primarily around the public hearing processes. However, the housing element should specifically describe how make a diligent effort to solicit public input from all economic groups (especially 1 households, their representatives, or advocates) during the development of the housing c icine and City will City of Rosemead California Environmental Quality Act Negative Declaration The City of Rosemead has completed an initial study of the following project in accordance with environmental guidelines: L DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: October I1, 2000 Case No.: General Plan Amendment 00-04 Address of Project: City Wide City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County . Applicant/Owner: City of Rosemead Address of Applicant/Owners: 8838 East Valley Blvd.. Rosemead, CA 91770 Project Description and Location: The City of Rosemead is updating its Housing Element that sets forth the City's strategy to preserve and enhance the community's residential character, expand housing opportunities for all economic sectors, and provide guidance and direction for local government decision-malting in all matters relating to housing. II. DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Rosemead's procedures or compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project located within The City of Rosemead may have a significant adverse effect on the environmen On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: 0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant. effect on the environment and a NEGATI\B DECLARATION is hereby adopted. ❑ Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project; and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached Initial Study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. III. FINDINGS Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: 1. As discussed in the preceding sections; General Plan Amendment 00-04/ Housing Element Draft, does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, including effects on animals or plants, or to eliminate historic or prehistoric sites. 2. As discussed in the preceding sections; both short-term and long-term environmental effects associated with General Plan Amendment 00-04/ Housing Element Draft will be less than significant. 3. 'When impacts associated with General Plan Amendment 00-04/ Housing Element Draft are considered alone or in combination with other impacts, the project-related impacts are insim- ificant. 4. The above discussions do not identify any substantial adverse impacts to people as a result of General Plan Amendment 00-04/ Housing Element Draft. 5. This declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Rosemead. IV. PUBLIC HEARLNG The Rosemead Planning Commission will consider the project and the draft negative declaration at its . meeting on Monday November 20. 2000. at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA. If the Rosemead Planning adopts the draft negative declaration, the project may proceed without preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIIt). Copies of the draft negative declaration and related documents are on file and available for public review in the Planning Department, Rosemead City Hall, 8838 East Valley Boulevard. This notice will also posted in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. Any interested person or agency may comment on this matter by submitting their written comments before Monday. November 20. 2000. Comments should be sent to: Planning Director, CiTy Hall, 8838 E. \%allev Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770, or call for more information (626) 569-2140. Name Title /G /2 00 _ Date Publication. Date NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City of Rosemead has completed an initial study of,the following project in accordance with City and State environmental guidelines: Case No.: General Plan Amendment 00-04 1998-2005 Rosemead Housing Element Update Project Location: Rosemead, California (Los Angeles County) Project Description: The City of Rosemead is updating its Housing Element that sets forth the City'.s strategy to preserve and enhance the community's .residential character, expand housing. opportunities for all economic sectors, and provide guidance and direction for local government decision-making in all matters relating to housing. The City prepared this study to determine the project's impact(s) on the environment. A draft negative declaration has been proposed, stating that the project will not have any significant negative impact(s) on the environment. The Planning Commission will consider the project and the draft negative declaration at its meeting on November 20. 2000. at 7:00 PM. The meeting will be held at the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. If the Planning Commission adopts the draft negative declaration, the project may proceed without preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Copies of the draft negative declaration and related documents are on file and available for public review in the Planning Department, Rosemead City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. This notice will also be posted in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. Any interested person or agency may comment on this matter by submitting their written comments before Monday. November 20. 2000. Comments should be sent to: Planning Director, Rosemead City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770, or call for more information (626) 569-2140. Bradford W. Johnson Name Planning Director Title Date: October 11. 2000 ASaih[o: S:a:c Cica:inFi+ousc. ?400 icmh Fvicet. Sauramenm, G..°iFiti - Sl o/4ti 5116'j Notice of Completion and Environmental Document 5ransmital Form L Proiec Title C Leaf Agenq' Stec[ hd/drnes`s ;C. Counn Pro.°^i LnBfion A. V (.U=nrln' . 4n. Assessor's Pasc! Nu i:. CYUS:. Stres v'Omin mii_'. a. Sra¢ HRT L c. I:ailwacs _ 7. D[r-.umBnl TYPE CGOA 0i. CNOP pj. KNcF Dcc 04. C D=n. El a E. Local Action Tyae 0;. g GrnC12i Plar, Upe-Ir Gj. J Gencz Plar Amendmrnr (y. C Afanc Plan _rfnrPr% OD-Uy n PGs_rJ ~~.Bm~/errnrd jn ~c. up Q/7'70 Ser NOTP belum SOH T Come: person 17 Q fz 2l ! ik -W /r Canaan Person . C' al PCtd On, Phunc / /?210 ~ 9 - ~l hJ'O 4a_ Ci:V/Cpmmunm' ~ 5b. "ror Rural, Ncar_s: Cummunira 'D. tu.-pors Qch O[ ment,'Suoseoucnr 7F pl- ❑ Fu NEPR OJ. J NOl 10TH_P 45 . C loin: D(,--=! . . p ? (Yno~SCH Ho: lU. J FONS7 i4. C nru! Documcr; . -'rJ li rl ]5.-UNn 06. C'NOP . Gi. CNOC US. CNOD n C kcxonc i2. v"znc Mem! Plan 05. C Annexation ]0 lane Dn-iswn (SLLIDCMSWL, in J C. hF Preserve ncel . 06. ❑ SpedLc Plan 7-am Mac, MC) Parcel Map 07. C Commum" Plar. , . 06. C Heoevdopmem ] i. ^ Use Pe:mi: ' n_. Development Type uaP id A Umu, Aan Gi. CMuung: MmR• V)a¢ 0?. . cn es : OH _ Sc S.. _ Acs Fmplo.•cc US. G Pow¢ 7ppc 7 02. +cc /Commvdal'. in J Sh Fq.f.. hc~, loyec 09. J vTZau T:,a;men: 17c (Ij. g upo s::ial: d C I Sq.n. _ hac _'nplopccc J///O Hciatcd m iU. 04. 05. u n D's'nc Patiliu3: MGD U en ? 1. Uu. CT-,,po.-atlon'. 7lyc _ 1 I ~ c Created N l Jul t t F 1L. Total Acres _ ~j1 h ,/a P i y o a 1. 12. projeci issm Discussed in Ducumeni Gl. -Z,.'+eS:neJrJ~'IFLLlI (K'. -~GCUiUC1C/iCSnllC 02. hFIICLLINRI ~nE IU. -i In+JS/:fUL'Smp u11anC: 05. J A,r Q..b, C Minces (K. C uchaeoic¢i~l/Histonrl 1_. C Noesc C5. Cocsal 2a+ne i3. J public Fervim U6. D BconomiC ?5. C Schools 07. C Fvc }car rd 15. C Sepuc Sps[ams 06, CL Floodmg/Drai -V M- cap-=r), Fundinp:.ppmi Federal S i. SDCial Full JOsi Dn C' Ira be/Cucuiauon v vcgcauon J Water Quahn• 24. : v'lato Fupplp State S ,5, Cv+c[land/Psparian 26. Wudlifc Gmwm Inducing 2F. C lncumpaubl- i..6 Use 29 = Cumuiauvc P5ecs 30. C Omv Total S - - - - ~SdS . - 1E. Present Land Use and --toning Lltl'iL>' (.CSe e~2sig hON 20---- ---5 - ii-s fi`OUS(n ~lerneT-~ 15. Protect Dessripiion Se ~11-flD(~{~ In4 s ~J r q /d 10~ q ~ ~ f. t C+ovil)n K.r7 s r'eSI'--een'o-/ civtce o~v(d Gt'ifcG`f~b✓r ror ~DC1t/ ov e conorn,,~: c%Lr3'i6K= nvui:2iiT- _ rile7S`_-- pat.' lJ -/6-02 - 1'c. Siorature.ot Lead Apen-Representat.ve lvoO I Ci:adn_houx: Rill oaten itlemifi=uon num era. for all nrR pruecu. U a-SCF, number aircadp cxisu for oje= (c l; tram : Noucc of Prcparauun or pro•ious. draF. Ducumcn[) prase fill n m. F+rm Rcvi[eC Y/b'L - A'eJ.%aw G.J29 M¢z Lu:riuut.or. or. R'c++.'ae neviming QOell.,l@s J Rtsourcts 6_•tn^' J Bcatir.~ / ~•'attr¢•avs . J Curstrvation ' D Fish and Gam: Fores:'v - Coiorado Rivc: BOard Dtat. Wattr Rcsourcc, J Rtdamation Paris and Rtcrcation J Off) cc of Histuric PrestrPlJOn ❑ Native hITI:SICan Hcriagt COmmission J S F P12.11 Consm•avun and Dtveiupmcm Commissior. J Coasai Commission J 'r..ncrg Commission - J State lands Commission D !sir Rcsourcts Board Cl Solid u'zac hlanautmcni Board J SuRCB: Sa=amcmo J Ru)QCB. Rccion D ~ti+atc: Rights D Watt; Quabn' . J Caltrans Disuia J Dept. of Transportation P:annina D 6cro nauilcs - J Galii u;TUa Highway Patrol ousing and Community Dtvc)opmcm J Satcwid:'.-lealth Planning J Heath D Food and t.griculturc _ J Public Utilities Commission D Public Works J Coraions J -nc~l Sc`vicc$ J OLh J Santa Momca Mounains J TRP• J OPR - OLG= J Opp - Corral J Bur eau of Land A:zna_tmcnt J Forts Strvicc J Oth-r V Omcr For SOB Use Only: lVtd at SCH F Ca:alug Number rw S'ar= Apalicant gtncit<_ D'tt Consulta nt Datt to SCH Conga Phone t Clta-anR Datc kodncss 1Jntes: - J ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: 2. Lead agency name and address: 3. Contact person and phone number: 4. Project location: i. Project sponsor's name and address: General Plan Amendment 00-04 Housing Element Draft City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 Jessica Wilkinson. Associate Planner Planning Department (626) 569-2140 City-Wide ' City of Rosemead County of Los Angeles City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 r, 6. General plan designation: All land use designations 7. Zoning: All zoning districts 8. Description of project. (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary.for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The City of Rosemead is updating its Housing Element that sets forth the City's strategy to preserve and enhance the community's residential character, expand housing opportunities for all economic sectors, and provide guidance and direction for local government decision-making in all matters relating to dousing. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting. (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The Citv of Rosemead is an urban suburb located in the San Gabriel Valley, 10 miles east of the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the cities of Temple City and San Gabriel, on the west by South San Gabriel, on the south by Montebello, plus by El Monte and South El Monte on the east. The city is 5.5 square miles or 2,344 acres in size. Rosemead is home to a resident population of approximately 57,328 people. 10. Other Agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). Approval by other agencies is not required as part of this project. ENVIRONA'IENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Hazards d: Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hydrology N7ater Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Land use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation / Traffic DETER- IINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: Z I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION Neill be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment; but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An E1,IVIRONTMENTAL MPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier £IR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revision or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further.is required. Sitmature JGsS"cu I Aseki Printed Name -Io-C)0 Date For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a•lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a proiect-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3: Once •the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant ',With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses", may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (e) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. i. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. S. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. 9. The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. SSUES - Potentially Significant Impact Less Thnn Significant With Mitigation Incorporatafion Less Than Significant Impact No Impact AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? - ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic buildings within ❑ ❑ ❑ " . a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or. qualir of the site and its ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ surroundings? . d) Create a new source of substantial light or . - " glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Conven Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance (Famtland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non- ❑ _ ❑ ❑ - ❑ agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 'A, illiamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion.of _ Farmland, to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts - Housing Element Less Tho.. Potentially Significant Less Than Significant. With Mitigation Significant No ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact 3) AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 11 11 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 4) BIOLOGICAL. RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Semite? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2- El ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 of Environmental Impacts - Housing Element 1, 1. Less Th.... Potentially Significant - Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, , ❑ or other means? ❑ ❑ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or ❑ impede the use of native wildlife nursery ❑ ❑ sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or - ordinances protecting biological resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ . such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? - f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan; and other ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ' 5) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifrcance of a historical resource as ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 defined in § 15064.59 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ID significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ pursuant to § 15064.5? - c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including - those interred outside of formal ❑ ❑ ❑ cemeteries? 6) GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project a)' Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts - Housing Element Less Th.., Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, of death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- . Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map - issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 L Geology Special Publication 42. ii.) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 in.) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 iv.) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss' ❑ ❑ 0 of topsoil? ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on. or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building code (1994), creating substantial risks to ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 life or collapse? ' 7) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. 'Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ❑ - ❑ 0 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ ' ❑ ❑ 0 C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 mule of an existing or proposed school? Evaluation of Environmenial Impacts - Housing Element Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No ISSUES Impact Incorporatatiod Impact Impact d) Be located on a.site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962"5, and, as a result, would it create a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q significant hazard to the public or the environment? - e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people - residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q f) For a project within the vicinity of a " private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ ❑ - ❑ Q plan? h) Expose people or structures to the risk of . loss; injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where ❑ ❑ ❑ Q residences are intermixed with wildlands? S) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: " a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? r7 7 b) Substantially degrade groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have ❑ ❑ ❑ Q been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including - ' through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- ❑ ❑ ❑ "Q or off-site? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts - Housing Elcmeni Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- ❑ ❑ ❑ or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water. which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or - provide substantial additional sources of - ❑ ❑ ❑ polluted run-off? - - f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ❑ quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation ❑ ❑ ❑ Q map? h) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures, which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of ❑ ❑ ❑ the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 9) -LA-ND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ Q communiry2 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with . jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community Evaluation of Enviromnental Impacts - Housing Element Less Tl-, Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No ISSUES Impact Incorporatation Impact Impact conservation plan? ❑ ❑ lo) MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in th-loss of availability of a lutown mineral resource that would be.of value to. the region and theresidents of the state? ❑ ❑ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general ❑ ❑ plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ o 11) NOISE. Would the project result in: " a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? - ❑ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or ❑ ❑ groundbome noise levels? c) .A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? - ❑ ❑ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the - project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the ' project expose people residing m working ❑ - in the project area to excessive noise ❑ levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ F11 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts - Housing Element SSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less Th- Significant With Mitigation Incorporatation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? . ❑ ❑ ❑ 0" c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ ID 13) PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need " for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ - c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q d) Parks? ❑ - ❑ ❑ 0 e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ 14) RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks nor other recreational facilities such that _ substantial physical deterioration of the . facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which Evaluation of Environmental Impacts - Housing Element c Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No ISSUES Impact Ineorporatation Impact Impact might have an adverse physical effect on ❑ _ ❑ ❑ Q the envirorunent? 15) TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) " Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacirv ratio on roads, or congestion at ❑ ❑ ❑ Q intersections)? b) Exceed. either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard " established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or highways? - , c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible ❑ ❑ ❑ Q uses (e. g. farm equipment)? ' e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ - ❑ ❑ Q f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 16) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements " of the applicable Regional Water Quality ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause " ❑ ❑ ❑ Q significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or " expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause Evaluation of Environmental Impacts - Housing Element Less Thera Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No ISSUES Impact _ Incorporatation Impact Impact construction of which could cause ❑ ❑ significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ ❑ e) Result in a determination in the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's' projected demand in addition to the. provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient petmined capacity to accorrunodate the _ project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal. state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ 17) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNJFICA_NCE. a) Does the project have the potential to - degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the ranee of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable ❑ ❑ future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either ❑ ❑ directly or indirectly?, ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ L~J Evaluation of Environmental Impacts - Housing Element EXPLANATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. AESTHETICS The implementation of the Housing Element will not damage nor degrade the scenic resources and visual character of existing residential areas. However, any proposed development has the potential to create new light and glare to the surrounding properties. Visual impacts depend on the location and physical characteristics of a proposed project. Therefore, a proposed project cannot be evaluated' properly until a location is established. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The city is highly urbanized and all properties zoned for agriculture are not currently utilized for farmland purposes. Such properties.consist of vacant lots, parkland, nurseries, and an elementary school. Potential impacts related to agricultural resources are site-specific and cannot be assessed properly until a proposed project is determined. AIR QUALITY The implementation of the Housing Element will not violate air quality standards or conflict with the execution of air quality plans. Individual air quality impacts depend on the project location and magnitude of the project. Therefore, it is tentative to evaluate appropriately on such factors that are site specific. Proposed development plans are thoroughly reviewed so as, not to impose environmental impacts to an existing community, including the creation of objectionable odors. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES There is no existing habitat or wetland with endangered and rare species in the city that may be affected. The implementation of the Housing Element will not create adverse impacts to the biological resources. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Rosemead is a highly urbanized city with few properties in the city with significant historical and archaeological resources. Potential impacts cannot be evaluated properly until a project location is known. Once a location is established, a detailed analysis of known cultural resources is subject to review. 6. GEOLOGYAND SOILS The entire City of Rosemead lies in a seismically active region. There are various properties in the city that are situated in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning .Act. Geological impacts cannot be assessed properly until the project location is known. Once a location is determined; all projects located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone would require a geologic study to be completed. This geologic study would provide a detailed analysis suitable of an environmental review. According to the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, most of the City of Rosemead is .located within an identified liquefaction zone. There are older structures throughout the city, either not built or reinforced to meet earthquake standards, that are susceptible to loss by liquefaction. Explanation of Environmental Evaluation - Housing Element HAZARDS .ANTD HAZARDOUS MATERLALS The implementation of the Housing Element does not include the creation and transportation of hazardous materials. Potential impacts cannot be evaluated properly until a project location is known. Once a location is established, a detailed analysis of known cultural resources is subject to review. The Housing Element promotes residential development that does not qualify as.sources for hazards and hazardous materials. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The implementation of the Housing Element will not create adverse impacts to the hydrology and water quality of the area. Water-quality impacts depend on the conditions of the community where a project will be located. Individual water quality impacts cannot be evaluated appropriately unless a project location is established. There are six companies in the city that provide water service and based on each one's capabilities, maintain and upgrade -water systems to meet current and projected demands. Though the Los Angeles County Flood Control has identified twenty-two locations in the cite that are deficient in storm drainage capacity, there is few existing housing or residential- zone land affected by flood-prone areas. Since the City of Rosemead has been declared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be in Zone "C", flood insurance is not mandatory and there is no conununity panel flood map for the city. LAND USE AND PLANNING Land use impacts can only be evaluated based on project locations and the type of land use proposed. Once a location and land use are established, potential impacts can be evaluated properly. Proposed residential developments must meet the zoning standards for which the project is situated. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES The Rosemead General Plan and Municipal Code does not include an approved land use plan that indicates a locally important mineral resource. Impacts to mineral resources cannot be evaluated properly without a specific project location. Once a location is established, all projects can be studied appropriately in a detailed environmental review. 11. NOISE Potential noise impacts can only be assessed according to a project's specific site and the proposed use. Noise-related impacts cannot be evaluated appropri ately until a project location is established. Until then, all located projects can be analyzed at a level suitable for an environmental review. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING According to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the population in Rosemead will grow at a rate of 1.5 percent each year between 1994 and 2005. Potential impacts carmot be evaluated properly until the scale of a property is determined. Explanation of Environmental Evaluation - Housing Element 13. PUBLIC SERVICES The city is not currently planning the construction of new or altered government facilities needed to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, etc. Impacts to law or fire enforcement, parks, and public facilities are area or community-specific. Impacts to schools. depend on the site and magnitude of the project, by the student population generated per household and the capacity of facilities in a give n school district. Therefore, this project cannot be evaluated properly until the magnitude of a proposed project is determined. 14. RECREATION According to projections in the Housing Element, the population will increase in several years though not substantial enough to create physical deterioration or the construction of new recreational facilities. Potential impacts cannot be evaluated properly until the scale of a property is determined. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC According to projections in.the-Housing Element, the population will increase in several years though not substantial to increase traffic relative to the existing pattern and capacity. Impacts to traffic and transportation depend on the extent of the proposed project and local conditions. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS . Though projections in the Housing Element have assessed that the population will increase in the next several years, it will not be substantial enough to exceed established level]-of-service standards of the utilities and service systems. Impacts to utilities and service systems are assessed on a local level, including facility capacities, and service providers. 1-7. NLANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The implementation of the Housing Element will not degrade the environmental quality of any fish and wildlife habitat or threaten to eliminate any plant or animal community. The past, current, or future housing projects will have individually limited but not cumulatively significant environmental effects. Potential impacts cannot be assessed properly until the extent of a proposed project is determined. Therefore, it is premature to consider project proposals until the scope of a project is established. Explanation of Environmental Evaluation - Housing Element ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION November 20, 2000 CASE NO.: General Plan Amendment 00-04 REQUEST: Amend the Housing Element of the Rosemead General Plan to meet the State Requirement for the 1998-2005 Planning Period. LOCATION: City Wide APPLICANT: City of Rosemead, Planning Department 8838 E. Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 PUBLIC HEARING: Notices were posted at ten public locations on October 11, 2000 and published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on October 20, 2000. EXHIBITS: A. Draft Housing Element B. Zoning Summary C. Initial Environmental Study I. BACKGROUND Rosemead and all local jurisdictions are required by State law to complete a he element update every five (5) years. The Housing Element provides analysis to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) as set by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). This analysis notes that the majority of potential housing development is through infill and recycling of lots. Staff finds that the element is able to meet the regional allocation numbers set by SCAG using the existing zoning standards. Development without an approved housing element is subject to legal action. If an element is found to be inadequate, the courts can place a moratorium on all development until the issues are addressed. Staff finds that Rosemead needs an adopted Housing Element in order to: • Apply for outside housing funds (e.g. CDBG, HOME); • Develop low-moderate income housing (e.g. senior housing); and • Issue building permits. txwa l S `E II Rosemead Planning Commission General Plan Amendment 00-04 Page 2 of 3 On September 5, 2000, a Planning Commission Workshop was held to review the Draft Housing Element. Subsequent to this meeting, an Initial Study was completed followed by public notification. The State Department of Housing & Community Development, HCD has reviewed this draft document and has provided several comments and additions. The attached Draft Housing Element has been revised to reflect the State's comments. Once the State has approved this Draft Housing Element, certification of this document will follow. II. ADMINISTATIVE ANALYSIS Statutory Requirements-Local government is required under State law to create and maintain a housing element. The purpose of such an element is to: 1) provide a framework for responding to locally identified housing needs, and 2) fulfill the statutory and regulatory requirements of the State of California. Section 65583 of the California Government Code defines a housing element. The intent with this housing element is to address Rosemead's housing goals and to comply with these findings and the requirements of Article 10.6 of the California Government Code. State law sets specific direction of local housing elements. They limit the types of analysis used to assess existing and projected housing needs. In addition, laws specify the nature of the community housing goals and the detail required in their objectives and policies. Finally, the State specifies the content and effect of programs that are identified to implement the element. Summary of Issues - Analysis of existing demographic and housing characteristics in the City of Rosemead identified the following trends for the 1998-2005 planning period: • A need for affordable units with three or more bedrooms for large families. • A lack of larger, new housing developments that would attract more moderate- and above-moderate income households to the City. • Currently there is an aging housing stock and there has been little new residential development in the last five years. Proposed Housing Element - The Rosemead General Plan is comprised of seven (7) elements, including a housing element. State law requires all of the elements to be internally consistent. A comprehensive revision of the entire general plan was completed in 1987. Section 65588(e) requires local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to revise their element by December 31, 2000. Therefore, this element is designed to complete the process and meet the requirement of Section 65588 for the planning period starting in 1998. This review shall evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness and progress in implementation of the previous element (1996) pursuant to Section 65588. The development of housing relates Rosemead Planning Commission General Plan Amendment 00-04 Page 3 of 3 directly to the standards contained within the land use element as to density, location, and development standards. Projected housing developments must be achieved within the limitations set forth by both land use and housing elements. Therefore, the two elements support one another in the common goal of achieving quality development. Similar relationships exist between all elements of the general plan. Rosemead Housing Element has been completed in the following format: 1. Assessment of existing conditions and future needs. Review of the existing housing stock condition, its characteristics, the population and employment projections. 2. Inventory of available resources and development constraints (e.g. land supply, zoning, public services and facilities, local procedures, housing costs, etc.). 3. Programs for the implementation from 1998-2005. Set forth a 5-year schedule of actions which the City of Rosemead intends to undertake in order to meet their goals. 4. Statement of community goals, objectives and policies. Set the priorities and criteria for housing development, maintenance and improvement. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An initial study was completed on October 10, 2000. This study has been prepared in accordance with state and local environmental regulations to analyze the potential environmental impacts that could be created from the proposed project. General Plan Amendment 00-04 has been created to, update the Housing Element that sets forth the City's strategy to preserve and enhance the community's residential character, expand housing opportunities for all economic sectors, and provide guidance and direction for local government decision-making in all matters relating to housing. Staff finds that the Ordinance itself will serve to reduce potential environmental impacts to a level of insignificance without eliminating business opportunity. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The study was noticed in 10 public locations and a locally circulated newspaper, soliciting comments for more than a 21-day period prior to the Planning Commission hearing on November 20, 2000. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Negative Declaration and recommend City Council Approval of General Plan Amendment 00-04. City of w9semead 8838 East'Vaffey Boukutind - 4~gsemeac4 California PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 20, 2000 ' CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Ortiz at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of the Rosemead Cip' Hall at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, RosemearL I Vice-Chairman Breen led the Pledge' of Allegiance. Commissioner Ruiz delivered invocation. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chairman Ortiz, Vice-Chairman Breen, Commissioners Alarcon, Loi, and Ruiz ABSENT: None EX OFFICIO: Crowe, Price, Johnson, Wilkinson, and Romanelli 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of November 6, 2000 (MO) Motion by Commissioner Ruiz seconded by Commissioner Alarcon, that the minutes of the City of Rosemead Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 6, 2000, be APPROVED as submitted. Vote results: YES: ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARC6N, LOI, RUIZ NO NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chairman Ortiz declared said motion duly carried and so ordered 2. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS: Deputy City Attorney Stan Price explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal planning commission decisions to the city council. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH.: The commission secretary administered the oath to members of the audience wishing to speak before the planting commission. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. &ENERAL PLAN'.A1MENDMENTi00 r04 Citj vule,Jt. "X-staff-initiated-amendment to update the General Plan Housing Element for the City of r- Rosemead. _ Presentation: Planning Director Johnson Staff recommendation: ADOPT a Negative Declaration and RECOMMEND CITY t COUNCIL APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment 00-04. ..F.• Fxl~►181'f NovEmur.R 2e. 2000 PLANNING CONNOSSION MwmES PAGE 2 Questions front the commissioners to the staff' None. Chairman Ortiz opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: None. Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. There being no one Jurther wishing to addres's the commission, Chairman Ortiz closed the public hearing segment for this project , (MO) Motion by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Commissioner Alarcbn, to ADOPT; Negative Declaration and to RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment 00-04. Vote results: YES: ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARCON, LOT, RUIZ NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chairman Ortiz declared said motion duly carried and so ordered B. CONDITIONAL USE PERM IT 00-810-2547 North San Gabriel Boulevard, Unit A A request by Long 13uynh, dba "La Vie Restaurant," for the issuance of a beer and wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with an eating establishment located in the C-3, Medium Commercial zone. Presentation: Associate Planner Wilkinson Staff recommendation" APPROVE--tor a period of OBO (1) V81111', subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Applicant(s): In the audience. Questions from the commissioners to the staff: Commissioner Loi inquired as to the permit issuance timeframe, whereupon, Associate Planner Wilkinson confirmed that issuance is based upon commission approval. Chairman Ortiz opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: None. Public hearing teas opened to dose who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. There being no one further wishing to address the commission, Chairman Ortiz closed the public hearing segment for this project. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 00-04). WHEREAS, Section 65350 et seq. of the Government Code allows a City to amend all or part of its General Plan, if it deems it to be in the public interest, and pursuant to this the City Council must hold a public hearing on the proposed change; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element update has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of California State Law, and addresses all of the elements identified in Government Code Section 65583; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code § 65585, the draft updated Housing Element was submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development and the updated Housing Element has been modified to incorporate that Department's requested changes. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared which concluded there would be no potential for a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed Housing Element update; and WHEREAS, the City is required to submit to the California Department of Housing and Community Development on or before December 30, 2000, an updated Housing Element in compliance with California Government Code Section 65566(e); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1. The findings for the Negative Declaration, contained in the staff report dated November 20, 2000, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. Section 2. The Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment 00-04 is hereby approved. Section 3. The findings for approval of General Plan Amendment 00-04 which are incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. Resolution No. 2000-66 General Plan Amendment 00-04 Section 4. Staff is directed to submit the revised Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development prior to the December 30, 2000 submittal deadline. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause same to be published as required by law. PASSED AND APPROVED this 12th day of December, 2000. MARGARET CLARK, Mayor ATTEST: NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk Resolution No. 2000-66 General Plan Amendment 00-04 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Nancy Valderrama, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-66 being: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 00-04). was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of December, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: . AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk APPROVED CITY OF RO'EMEAD DATE 3701 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING'- (4-4- u,J 0 rC- ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 12, 2000 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 8:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Taylor The Invocation was delivered by Chaplain Charlie Corum of the Pacific Youth Correctional Ministries ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Bruesch, Taylor, Vasquez, Mayor Pro Tem Imperial, and Mayor Clark Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NONE PRESENTATIONS: 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - NONE H. PUBLIC HEARINGS An explanation of the procedures for the conduct of the public hearing was presented by the City Attorney. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-04 - AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN TO MEET THE STATE REQUIREMENT FOR 1998-2005 PLANNING PERIOD A.1 ' RESOLUTION NO. 2000-66 - A RESOLUTION OF TI!IE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 00-04) Frank Tripepi, City Manager, presented the staff report. The Mayor opened the public hearing for those in the audience wishing to address this item. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. . MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Council adopt a Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment 00-04 and adopt Resolution No. 2000-66. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CCMIN:12-12-00 Page 9 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 00-04). WHEREAS, Section 65350 et seq. of the Government Code allows a City to amend all or part of. its General Plan, if it deems it to be in the public interest, and pursuant to this the City .Council must hold a public hearing on the proposed change; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element update has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of California State Law, and addresses all6f,the.elemen.i -identified in Government Code Section 65583; and - - WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code § 65555, the dra it~ pdated Housing Element v gas submitted to the Department of Housing and Communifj! Development arm .the updated Housing:..:. Element has been modified to incorporate that Department's requested changes. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15063.of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared which concluded there would be no potential for a significant effect on the environment-and a Negative Declaration tivas prepared; and WHEREAS, on November, 20, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended that the City Council _adopt a resolution_ppioung the;proposed Housing Element update; and - WHEREAS, the City is required to submit to the_ California Department of Housing and Community Development on or before December 30, 2000: an updated Housing Element in compliance with California Government Code Section 65566(e); and NOR', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1. The findings for the Negative Declaration, contained in the staff report dated November 20, 2000, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. Section 2. The Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment 00-04 is hereby approved. Section 3. The findings -for approval of General Plan Amendment 00-04 which are incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. Resolution No. 2000-66 General Plan Amendment 00-04 Section 4. Staff is directed to submit the revised Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development prior to the December 30, 2000 submittal. deadline. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause same to be published as required by law. PASSED AND APPROVED: this.] 2th day of December, 2000. - I o- - MARGARET CLARK, Mayor ATTEST:,: Resolution No. 2000-66 General Plan Amendment 00-04 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Nancy Valderrama, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-66 being: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND., a AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 00-04). was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th.day of Decembter 2000, by the following vote, to wit: ~ AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT:. COUNCIL MEMBERS: . 1- - - NANO VALDERRAMA, City Clerk` RESOLUTION NO. 2002-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, APPROVING REVISIONS TO THE ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 00-04). WHEREAS, Section 65350 et seq. of the Government Code allows a City to amend all or part of its General Plan, if it deems it to be in the public interest, and pursuant to this the City Council must hold a public hearing on the proposed change; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element update has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of California State Law, and addresses all of the elements identified in Government Code Section 65583; and . WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code § 65585, the draft updated Housing Element was submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development and the updated Housing Element has been modified to incorporate that Department's requested changes. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared which concluded there would be no potential for a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was adopted by the City Council on December 12, 2000; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed Housing Element update revision; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council o_f the City of Rosemead as follows: . Section 1. The findings for the Negative Declaration, contained in the staff report dated November 20, 2000, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. Section 2. The revisions attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by this reference, to the Housing Element Update, dated November 2000/General Plan Amendment 00-04 are hereby approved and the Planning Director is hereby directed to incorporate the revisions in the final Housing Element. Section 3. The findings for approval of General Plan Amendment 00-04; Revision which are incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. Section 4. Staff is directed to submit the revised Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for certification. COUNCIL AGENDA MAR 2 6 2002 ~.A ~ 1 T E ful r`sJ. Resolution No. 2002-15 General Plan Amendment 00-04 Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED AND APPROVED this 26th day of March, 2002. JAY IMPERIAL, Mayor ATTEST: NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk Resolution No. 2002-15 General Plan Amendment 00-04 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Nancy Valderrama, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2002-15 being: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, APPROVING REVISIONS TO THE ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN (GPA 00-04) was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26°i day of March 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk EXHIBIT The City alsb-obta r~u vucerapprovai -tor- Article : 4 authority in November. 1991. This authorization allowed the RHDC to undertake the production of 200 units of senior housing. As indicated above. 51 of these units have been constructed and 72 are currently proposed for construction. The program goal is for the Agency to construct 72 units of affordable housing by 2002 and to fulfill its Article 34 authority to create the remaining 77 very low/low income units available under its authority by the end of the planning period. Land Assemblage and Write-Downs Rosemead, will use both CDBG and redevelopment funds to write-down the cost of land for development of low and moderate-income housing. The intent of this program is to reduce land costs so that it becomes economically feasible for a private (usually non-profit) developer to build units that are affordable to low and moderate income households. Rosemead will make every effort to provide land write-downs for residential projects that set aside at least 20-percent of the units for low and moderate- income households. The City, through the Redevelopment Agency, can assist in acquiring and assembling property, or subsidizing- on-site and off-site improvements as part of this program. As an example, the City has acquired a parcel through tax default. That parcel will be transferred to the Rosemead Housing Development Corporation for development, in accordance with the strategy listed below, "Non Profit Construction." The City is currently identifying additional properties in tax default and is also looking at foreclosed properties as a potential source of available land. The goal is to develop at least two affordable units for new home ownership within the planning period. In addition, the City, will continue to implement zone changes to portions of the zoning map that are part of the City's long range planning programs. Specifically, the re-zoning of two areas outlined as Area 3 and Area 8 (see map in Appendix V outlining these areas) to high density residential. Within the next two years the City will initiate these zone changes and then 'promote these. two, areas in addition to the remaining R-3 parcels outlined in the underutilized land table to affordable housing developers. The goal, is to promote and facilitate the q development of affordable housing opportunities in these areas during the planning period using a variety of mechanisms including: 1) RFP's for "specific h plans" on larger sites, including mixed use development, 2) requests for smaller scale projects by developers on these sites. As Rosemead is a completely built- out community, this is one of the few strategies that the City feels will accomplish 0<1 the goal of re-use of land to affordable housing units, to be built by for-profit and non-profit developers. Although there are no recent examples of such zone change activity within the Community, the City is confident that by upzoning upwards of fifty parcels (approximately 17 Acres) to R-3 designations, the market will bear multi-family units. The greatest advantage that this strategy provides is contiguous parcels that are more easily consolidated into single parcels. Both of (11/1/00) c O W Vl QC 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ROSEMEAD GENERAL P' A HOUSING ELEMENT these areas exist today with an inconsistent mixture of substandard residential units ranging from 1 to 12 units per parcel. Once the zone changes are completed, staff will set up meetings with housing developers to review the individual • parcels and further strategize how the City will facilitate specific projects with the mechanisms outlined within the housing element. The 17 acres included in Area three and eight,. will be able to support at a maximum 510 units without any density bonuses and 638 units if density bonuses were to be granted on all projects. The City is committed to this re-use strategy and will monitor the success at one year intervals after the zone changes are made. If the strategy appears to not produce a range of affordable housing units the City will .look at additional strategies to meet the unit requirements under the RHNA calculation. Finally, the potential for several other mixed-use residential/retail project sites currently exist in- the City within the current zoning designations. The City has identified 45 acres within the mixed use zoning designation that it is marketing and is currently meeting with interested developers. The City, through the Rosemead Housing Development Corporation, will use available funding mechanisms to assist developers with land assemblage and construction of affordable units and mixed level income unit projects. Marketing is ongoing. Density Bonus"-State law requires a City to either grant a density bonus of 25- percent over. the maximum site density, along with one additional regulatory concession. or provide other incentives of equivalent financial value based on the land cost perdwef-ing unit if a developer dedicates: 20-percent of the proposed units to lower income households, 10-percent _of the proposed units to very-low income households, or 50-percent of the proposed units to "qualifying residents" (e.g., elderly). This is intended to ensure that the housing development can be produced at a reduced cost. Developers seeking a density bonus must enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City to ensure continued affordability for a minimum of 30 years. Rents for affordable units cannot exceed 30-percent of the gross monthly income. This limit is subject to annual rent adjustments based on the. tenants income. Rosemead will inform residential development applicants of density , bonus opportunities in order to encourage development of privately sponsored affordable housing and will create a promotional handout for same. The City will distribute the handout to developers, across the counter at Planning and Building and Safety. In addition, it will be distributed to the Community Development Department for distribution to affordable housing developers. The City anticipates that the handout will be completed by June 2002, during the planning period. (11/1/00) H-69 November 2000 A. PUBLIC HEARIN G - RESOLUTION NO. 2002-17 = A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF ALLEY NORTH OF GARVEY AVENUE (DEL MAR AVENUE/196.46 FEET WEST SOUTHWEST OF DEL MAR AVENUE) The Mayor Pro Tern opened the public hearing for anyone in the audience to wishing to speak on this item. There, being no one, the Mayor closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2002-17, vacating a portion of alley north of Garvey Avenue between Del Mar Avenue and 196.46 feet west-southwest of Del Mar Avenue. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez No: None Absent: Imperial Abstain: None The Mayor Pro Tern declared said motion duly carried and so ordered . PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-04; REVISION - AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN TO MEET THE STATE REQUIREMENT FOR 1998- 2005 PLANNING PERIOD The Mayor Pro Tern opened the public hearing for those in the audience wishing to address this item. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, asked if meeting the high density requirements would tax other utilities such as gas, electricity and water. Councilman Taylor responded that the State requires that Cities and Counties update their housing element. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor Pro Tern closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the Council adopt the revised 2000-2005 Housing Element. Vote resulted: .Yes: Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez No: None Absent: Imperial . Abstain: None CCMIN:3-26-02 Page 412 V. i Jbe Mayor Pro Tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. III. LEGISLATIVE - A. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-14 - CLAIMS AND DEMANDS . The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,718,624.96 NUMBERED 37042 THROUGH 37196 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2002-14. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez No: None Absent: Imperial Abstain: None The Mayor Pro Tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-13 AUTHORIZING COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND TRAFFIC COMMISSIONS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AUTHORIZING COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND TRAFFIC COMMISSIONS MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMEER CLARK that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2002-13. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez No: None Absent: Imperial Abstain: None The Mayor Pro Tern declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CCMn4:3-26-02 Page N 13