Accentuate the Postive, Part 5

The fifth installment of an ongoing series of positive developments in Rosemead: Approval of the new general plan.

I've attached a FAQ I wrote up a few weeks ago. I think a version of this was passed out by someone (not me) at the candidate's forum on Tuesday. It's not campaign material, per se. It's just designed to address some of the misperceptions about the plan. The main one is the idea that the new plan will generate more traffic than the old one.

As I've posted a number of times, that's a lie. Under the old plan (the one Clark, Ly and Armenta say they want to go back to, although I'd bet at least two of them have never even SEEN either the new OR the old general plans and their accompanying EIRs), commercial and industrial square footage would total about 42 million square feet at build-out. Under the new general plan, build-out stops at about 14 million square feet. For all you math wizzes out there, that's a reduction of about 67%. With 2/3 less commericial and industrial density, traffic will, of course, be much lower under the new plan at build out than it would have been under the old plan. [Or, to put it in the reverse, shifting from the current plan to the old plan would triple the allowable commercial and industrial square footage).

It may also surprise you to hear that the build-out number of residential units under the new plan is about what some documents from the OLD general plan said it would be. The only differences is where those units will be located.

The new plan has a much more rational way of trying to manage the population growth that is going to occur in Rosemead and surrounding areas, whether we plan for it or not. Rather than forcing new residents into higher densities in the residential neighborhoods of Rosemead, future population growth is targeted in the new mixed-use areas.

Mayor Tran, Mayor Pro Tem John Nuñez, Councilwoman Polly Low, and, of course, the members of the Planning Commission worked very hard to create this new document. It is so clearly better than the previously-existing document that any fair comparison of the results under the two possible visions for Rosemead is simply no contest. Deep down, I suspect even Margaret Clark realizes this. It's unfortunate that she has decided, instead, to try to score political points by distorting what the new plan will accomplish.

AttachmentSize
General Plan FAQ5.pdf41.57 KB

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Just the FAQ's mam

Thanks for posting the fact sheet.

The Old General Plan was so obsolete in so many areas as to be worthless.

Where was the leadership of Maggie, Gary, Jay in updating it over the last 20 years??
No wonder that it seems that there are major changes.
It's the 21st Century.

The City was allowed to stagnate.
The 1998 Building Code Changes were NEVER IMPLEMENTED!!
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was never implemented!!
No Website
No Document Tracking and Retrieval.
No tracking in the Clerks Office
No Multi Language Compliance- we got a Consent Decree Mandate from the US Department of Justice on that one.
The list is endless.
And yes it Is (and Will be) expensive to get up to standard/ compliance.
IT would have been much more efficient to update as needed instead of Benign Neglect.

Business taxes

I guess Clark, Ly and Armenta want more commercial and industrial density so their plan for a new business tax will raise more money for the city.

Post new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. If you don't know the answer, refresh (press F5) and a new question may appear.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Share This

Bookmark and Share