Rosemead general plan passes

| | Comments (4) |

Rosemead Ok'd its general plan, and, gasp, it was passed on a 3-2 vote. Council members Gary Taylor and Margaret Clark dissented. Here is the story. 

Aspects of the general plan are:

-- Allows an additional 6,000 housing units - a nearly 50 percent increase from the current 14,700 units. The increase is projected to bring the city's population to 80,000 residents from the current 58,000.

-- Under the plan, most growth would be in development where apartments or condominiums would be above or near street-level businesses. Such projects could be six or seven stories tall.

Much like the Wal-Mart fiasco, the general plan is deviding the council and the community. But then again, what doesn't divide the Rosemead City Council?

And I understand why. Just look at the demographics, lengths of terms by each council member and their voting history. Clark and Taylor have a combined 50 years on the council, while Tran, Low and Nunez have a combined seven years.

Naturally, these leaders have their followers, and what results is a disjointed council that can rarely agree on anything.

4 Comments

Anonymous said:

Maybe next Roger Hernandez will claim he has a JOB! He is a constant liar and has a history of violence in his family.

Notice how ROGER HERNADEZ lists himself as MAYOR?

http://felipeagredano.com/aboutus.asp

Todd Kunioka said:

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again: If people would just read the previous plan the the new plan, and project both forward 20 years, this should not be controversial at all.

The previous plan forecast a total of 20,000 dwelling units, nearly all going into R1 and R2 residential areas. The new plan projects a total of about 20,000 dwelling units, with nearly all the new growth located in mixed use areas along major boulevards instead of in R1 and R2 areas.

The previous plan permitted commercial areas to be built up to an FAR (floor area ratio) of 1.0; the new plan reduces that to .35. That means that under the plan supported by Clark and Taylor, a developer was entitled to put 100,000 square feet of retail on to a lot of 100,000 square feet (meaning underground parking and a building up to 75 feet tall). Under the new plan, you couldn't put more than 35,000 square feet of retail there.

In the mixed use areas, the reduced permitted density of commercial retail was replaced with increased residential square footage. But the traffic impact of even an additional (say) 100,000 square feet of residential uses in a mixed use development pales compared to what the 65,000 square feet of commercial development we're preventing would have brought. That's why the traffic studies showed that traffic would be MUCH worse in 2025 under the old plan than it will be under the new plan.

Opponents of the new plan seem to think that if we kept the old plan, somehow that would freeze economic development and residential population growth in our city and in all the cities that surround us. Obviously, that's not going to happen. People are going to have to live somewhere, and if we don't plan for it in new mixed use developments, then we're going to get it in unplanned additional dwelling units in R1 and R2 areas. Commercial development will come, and if we didn't limit it to the first floor of mixed use developments, then we'd get two and three story projects with 100% retail, and we'd *really* get hit with traffic gridlock.

www.saveourcommunity.us

Anonymous said:

While it is important that the City update it's General Plan, the impact of increased density should be more evenly distributed throughout the city. There are many R1 and R2 areas right next to the targeted mixed used areas. It is these residents that will have to live with the adverse impact of traffic, noise, pollution, etc daily. Fortunately for the folks on the Planning Commission and City Council, they do not live by the targeted sites where the increased density is to take place - it will not be in their back or front yards.


The Truth said:

JUST SAY NO TO THE THREE AMIGOS!

They are bad for Rosemead. Vote them out of office before it is too late and the city is fleeced. Why is Nunez still in office? Recall Nunez!

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

About this blog

City Hall reporters tear pages out of their notepads for a look at what doesn't always make it in the paper.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jennifer McLain published on October 16, 2008 6:23 PM.

SGV official guilty to abusing public money was the previous entry in this blog.

Corruption hits Industry sheriff's department is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Recent Comments

The Truth on Rosemead general plan passes: JUST SAY NO TO THE THREE AMIGOS! They are bad for Rosemead. Vote the ...

Anonymous on Rosemead general plan passes: While it is important that the City update it's General Plan, the impa ...

Todd Kunioka on Rosemead general plan passes: Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again: If people would just ...

Anonymous on Rosemead general plan passes: Maybe next Roger Hernandez will claim he has a JOB! He is a constant l ...

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

Advertisement

Headlines