Paramount council advances Clearwater Specific Plan, adds prohibition on rail‑facing residential balconies after air‑quality objections

The Paramount City Council continued and closed a public hearing May 19 and moved the Clearwater Specific Plan forward by approving two resolutions and introducing Ordinance No. 12‑18 with additional redlined language addressing rail‑adjacent housing. Mayor Olmos and staff said the plan replaces the 1987 Clearwater East specific plan and establishes a long‑range redevelopment framework for roughly 71 acres north of Rosecrans and adjacent to the Union Pacific right‑of‑way.

Planning and Building Director John King told the council the plan modernizes land uses, updates development standards and brings the city into compliance with state housing laws. He described the area as “a vibrant mixed‑use district” that could, over decades, accommodate a variety of housing types, up to programmatic buildout estimates staff characterized as long‑term. King noted the project was accompanied by a comprehensive environmental impact report and mitigation program, and that the CEQA review identified air quality, greenhouse gases and noise among impacts that require mitigation and, for some impacts, a statement of overriding considerations.

The hearing drew a speaker in opposition. Cassandra Bow, an attorney with Angel Law representing the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), urged the council not to approve the plan as proposed and pressed for stronger measures to protect public health in the plan area, which she said is a state‑designated disadvantaged community with elevated pollution burdens. “We respectfully request that the city council not approve the Clearwater Specific Plan project as proposed until it requires further design standards, conditions, and mitigation measures that would meaningfully protect its residents’ public health and safety,” Bow said, and recommended the city require MERV‑16 filtration rather than MERV‑13 for future multifamily residential projects.

Staff said the city had received technical studies and AQMD comments and had updated the plan text in response. John King pointed to redline changes in the packet that, among other items, require that “residential units should be sited as far as feasible from the Union Pacific railroad corridor to minimize exposure to rail‑related noise, vibration, and air pollutants,” that “nonresidential uses, structured parking, open spaces, and building massing should be utilized as buffers,” and that “residential balconies facing the rail corridor should be prohibited or minimized.”

Council members questioned feasibility and enforceability—particularly whether a prohibition would stand up under state housing law—and debated objective versus discretionary language. The city attorney advised the council that objective development standards are easier to enforce and that council direction now would set the ground rules for future projects; council members noted the council could amend the plan later if needed.

On separate roll‑call votes the council certified the final EIR and adopted amendments to the general plan. The council then introduced Ordinance No. 12‑18, including the redlined changes and language addressing balconies facing the Union Pacific corridor; the motion to introduce the ordinance passed on a unanimous roll call of members present. Staff emphasized that the specific plan is a programmatic, long‑term framework and that no immediate development approvals are tied to tonight’s actions.

The council paused the hearing to consider final wording and procedure before second reading; staff noted that specific projects would return with more detailed design and environmental analyses as required. The council scheduled follow‑up and implementation steps as part of the plan adoption process.