PC - Item 4B - Municipal Code Amendment 09-03 Chapter 17.12 of Title 17 - Amortization of Nonconforming Poultry Slaughter BusinessesROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2009
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-03, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12
OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING
POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES
SUMMARY
The City of Rosemead is proposing to amend Chapter 17.12 of the Rosemead
Municipal Code relating to the amortization of nonconforming poultry slaughter
businesses in the City (Ordinance No. 883 - Exhibit A). Under the current code, poultry
slaughter is not a permitted use. However, poultry slaughter businesses commenced
prior to May 14, 1991 that have continued in existence since that time, may continue to
exist so long as they do not expand. The proposed amendment requires that all
nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses cease operation effective December 31,
2012. It also allows owners of such businesses to apply for an extension at least 180
days prior to December 31, 2012. All proposed extensions will be heard by the City
Council at a public hearing.
Environmental Determination
An Initial Study was prepared recommending the adoption of a Negative Declaration in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (the Initial
Study and Negative Declaration are attached to this report as Exhibit B). The Initial
Study is an environmental analysis of the proposed code amendment to determine
whether the proposed land use will have potentially significant effects on the
environment. This- study has found that there are no potentially significant
environmental impacts that could occur with the adoption of the proposed code
amendment.
A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was distributed for a 20-day public
review and comment period between October 26, 2009 and November 16, 2009. If the
Commission is inclined to recommend approval this project, the Commission must make
a finding of adequacy with the environmental assessment and recommend that the City
Council adopt the Negative Declaration.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 2009
Page 2 of 5
Municipal Code Requirements
Section 17.116.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) authorizes the Planning
Commission to consider and recommend proposed municipal code amendments to the
City Council whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good
zoning practice justifies such action.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 09-23, a
resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Negative Declaration and
ADOPT Ordinance No. 883, modifying the zoning code with respect to the amortization
of poultry slaughter businesses.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the required public posting requirements of the
regular agenda notification process, and through the required noticing and postings
pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Development Director
Exhibits:
A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-23
B. Initial Study & Negative Declaration
C. Draft Ordinance No. 883
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 2009
Pace 3 of 5
EXHIBIT "A"
PC RESOLUTION 09-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-03
AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AMORTIZATION
OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES
WHEREAS, Section 17.116.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth
procedures and requirements for municipal code amendments; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2009, an Initial Environmental Study for the
proposed Municipal Code Amendment was completed, finding that the proposed project
could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was
prepared, in accordance with the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act,
and local environmental guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has adopted the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, and map, including specific development standards, to control development;
and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Amendment 09-03 establishes an amortization
period for all nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses; and
WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the
Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed municipal code
amendments to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2009, a notice was published in the San Gabriel
Valley Tribune specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public
hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to
Municipal Code Amendment 09-03; and
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 2009
Page 4 of 5
WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all
testimony presented to them in order 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 makes a finding of adequacy
with the Negative Declaration and HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the City Council adopt
the Negative Declaration, as the environmental clearance for Municipal Code
Amendment 09-03. ,
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
that Municipal Code Amendment 09-03 is in the best interest of the public necessity and
general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed
municipal code amendment, in that the change to the Rosemead Municipal Code will
provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the
city.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES
that Municipal Code Amendment 09-03 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan
in that the land use element of the General Plan does not identify specifically permitted
uses, rather the General Plan specifies that zoning regulations establish specific uses
allowed within the light industrial land use designations of the City. While the General
Plan does recognize that light industrial may be used for "limited food processing uses,"
the zoning code has prohibited the establishment of new poultry slaughter businesses
since 1991. The proposed ordinance will simply amortize any such remaining uses over
the next three years.
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of Municipal Code Amendment 09-03, amending Section
17.12 of the Rosemead Municipal Code related to the amortization of nonconforming
poultry slaughter businesses.
SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on November 16, 2009 by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SECTION 6. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 2009
Paoe 5 of 5
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 16th day of November 2009.
Diana Herrera. Chairwoman
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on 16th day of
November, 2009, by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Sheri Bermejo, Secretary
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
City of Rosemead
Planning Division
8838 E. Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, California 91770
PROJECT TITLE: Municipal Code Amendment No. 09-03 (MCA 09-03)
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Rosemead
PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Brian Saeki
ADDRESS: City of Rosemead - Planning Division, 8838 E. Valley Blvd_ Rosemead, CA 91770
TELEPHONE: (626) 569-2157
PROJECT LOCATION: City of Rosemead (citywide)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Rosemead is proposing to amend Rosemead Zoning Ordinance Section 17.12 to
amortize all non-conforming poultry slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by
December 31, 2012. There will be no associated development related to this code amendment.
FINDING
On the basis of the initial study on file in the Planning Division:
X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
The proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, however there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program on file in the Planning Division Office were adopted to reduce the potential
impacts to a level of insignificance.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Completed by: Brian Saeki Determination Approved:
Title: Community Development Director Title:
Date: November 16, 2009 Date:
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: October 26, 2009 to November 16, 2009
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT: _ Yes No
INITIAL STUDY REVISED:, _ Yes _No
EXHIBIT B
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
1. Project title:
Municipal Code Amendment 09-03
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Rosemead, 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770
3. Contact person and phone number:
Brian Saeki, Community Development Director 626-569-2157
4. Project location:
Citywide Municipal Code Amendment
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
City of Rosemead, 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770
6. General Plan designation:
Citywide
7. Zoning:
Citywide
8. Description of project:
The City of Rosemead is proposing to amend Rosemead Zoning Ordinance Section 17.12
to amortize all nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by
December 31, 2012. There will be no associated development related to this code
amendment.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
The project encompasses the entire City limits.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
I
Initial Studv Environmental Checklist
SECTION 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
❑
❑
❑
b)
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
❑
❑
❑
outcroppings, and historic building within a
state scenic highway?
c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality 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?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), 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 Williamson 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?
I a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑
the applicable air quality plan?
2
Environmental
,kT a W ,n la w P44 rwg, kR87. 9 44' sn"+" h .fie' s sw'f."+, s i '`fit'" <y
+~J'is`EFC rtf~'{`e`v se x°~"~7!'rX~J>n n`~n'Xv,A~ ~+>X`~~'~~,r,~Le
~,~,~~Environmentaltlssues,;,~, _ ~y,~Almpact.y~MthgaUon ~~Impactlmpact
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
projected air quality violation?
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~ " BiologrcalResourcesn ' ~M,g
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 19
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
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?
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, vernal ❑ ❑ ❑
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 or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
'4 ~ Tzsra'«` ~ 7e ~:z. qr > nd. tai, ~p a ~Y a t ctz'9bu u- tL 3 -4
~ i~s~ `I~+ •1~ ,Y+R,t~! r ~ +~'a~si,"~x~~'r$x~ a~~?tLess Than!"' ~ .gy~' ,~y".,
t;. ~,a `~~~^~~C f~~ tYt s ry~l1~~.~~,~.c ~'t P~otent~ally`ar,Signif{cantLess~T~han6~~t
,$j~ Envlronmentallssues ImpactMrtigationlmpactimp"acts
i f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other ❑ ❑ ❑
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
y~'~~~to < xs.a nr~-..ryL t&.a~~".;q,~Y~ ~ Y??'« V r~Qr fY Y,rt"k3 s, 4s(~ e A2 (13 x
'.~~lNouldthepro/ect;~m~S~~.Y~s'S ~~r2aF~C`S~ar~~«~q~se ~tsit,~F;~~1cw~~PSsr~s.~''w~LYx~~~'
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource as ❑ ❑ ❑
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the 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?
e- v •e'b vn? ,r° r t't a t t k y.
,6Geologyand,Sotls +"~yy l~~(
?
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury or 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 and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ❑
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ❑ ❑ ❑
loss 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
collapse?
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
~~~~~'Environmentallssuesnq~,~,~?:~`,~,,..~,'Impact+ aMiti aVtion' i°alm acts ~Ylm act
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building ❑ ❑ ❑
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
l5 wo- e a as{,.va -'f ~r r.:ure. ~~~p ~r x z~ F f.4 ~.~.~'z zu x~. E ~'q+~y~1v~~'13~a`~~ fi^3 ;ak
'7 Hazards~and Haza yrdous Matenals ''A~~~~ , f j ,1 ~ ~ ~
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine ❑ ❑ ❑
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions ❑ ❑ ❑
involving the likely release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within ❑ ❑ ❑
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code ❑ ❑ ❑
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
❑
hazard for people residing or working in E] E]
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency ❑ ❑ ❑
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Initial Studv Environmental Checklist
F .p ^W4 ~.s . ¢ x•'`j~~ F t'h .:s c~,n*'~y ~N~ ~'i. ~l?Y'r-ek~r ,.•L 1 s~ ~'t..~ e`U!ifi.
* , ~ ~t ~ ~A~6~ Potentially SignrficantaLess+Than~r~
t A t J a '?<Si~e~ 5 s-xt ,un.W f 3 ua e a eT
S~t`~s~>~; _~~s;Env_vorlmental IssueS~s~s K~~~~~Impact,~„M~tigeUo~~rr`Imgact;r~.:lmpact
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where ❑ ❑ ❑
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
to I ~ Y~ n, R* r ~a tnt J5 {i",y S ~ qx o < `,3`y.'g`EY>aF. ~"qT y4 t r~'k
48,Hydrologyand Water Quality g i ,F~€.~q ~ r`~" 1 +
ti"e YS ^SPn•y. 3ws'3ve#t•"l, i•' 3,"> ^t ~ ~F e y(i ~y wi "7 'ki
a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete 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 (e.g., 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 been granted?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of 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- 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 runoff?
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 map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑
flood flows?
Initial Study Environmental checklist
s r~~N~ 'gy`m ~ ,#PotentiallyyS~gn`ifcant4 Less Than ~+~~ar"
`-'~„p;,~m,•C,y~.~.Environmental~IssuesagL ra„.4„u~,'a~~~lmpactq~~?~~vM~tigat~ n~,~~lmpact~ ;Impact
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, or ❑ ❑ ❑
Lmudflow?
9 ~ Land'lJse
&w Z L wi 4'4c 9 n~a #~~~>k~ S?Z'$^ fir'"~~,L`$~'w' pgiw.Frr,lrf
T ..4Would~theepro/ect
a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑
community?
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?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural communities ❑ ❑ ❑
conservation plan?
10,Mmeraf Resources ?t fx l a x el~ t
i amd ,r.v m p z rmF sa + pl' 'j V ww ti "c z 1`"t"'"`
ra. i `V nb1 tir k~1 xih~`"F!`.+9'~" jr, a i+ £ser~ afi 5.~• i~ 3'e+i' >,1
, tWould therPt i9t;.
r..U. v, a,
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to ❑ . ❑ ❑
the region and the residents 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? g
Y ik ~ ac r i a ~ L f F""`#„~.. ,fin ba~ ,3y~Af
~~z ,Would Jhelpro/ectrresult~ln 3,~~1~~~ ~l'~~ny
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 groundborne vibration or ❑ ❑ ❑
_ groundborne 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?
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
~~~,~a`~~",~•'.FaEer~.4~~'~'s+~` ~"i~'~~~~ s k ~,~or •~~,n~-~~t"'~+ '~'~~~~,~aLresst~Than
' If+
e ~y~ , ~.s `y~sS~~~Poten4a~lly',S~gnificantx Le~ssaThan~~ ~"s~`~~.
`a ) 4 SirEnviron enfas"ues~c ' S 9m'actrM tW~atn , a m actnt~4 mNact
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 or 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?
( Yii1Wt K.
o ' 'h '.l "O+i'~s 2 us. Y 1 ! i W"• ~G k
'12, Ppula "o" rtd~Housmg ir( X s ' ' • * ' a
n,a
~'n+VH n A(1y7t1>i v t{'n 3~'„*k"AS•$y Y'.£;~ ~'4ut' ~ ~ ~.s
IWould?the pro~ect:,~
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (e.g., by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly ❑ ❑ ❑
(e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑
replacement housing elsewhere? {
P .r t'S Y ZSU iVd~~i' 1 } "Y r ~tF"CM~y F `f~x
X13 Publ c Servl es »ta }a a~e Mkt i ~ I _ W1 ; P.
,y{ t r' R '1lM sts" t+ T d "5 R' 3
,
,a Would the prgjebt)result }n substantlalfaciverse physid6l'impa sss6ciatediwith,,the5%
provision of new or physicailyraitered governmentaitfactiities,,tneed,for~new orRphys"ically
' en+ 5sP x .st v.9r t 1~ - ~ ,fin c k^^.n ~t m~. y„=s .,,w~ a* a^'x a ~ n~i •r'
' ~`nalteredtgovernmentahfact6ties the~construchoh of whtch couldlcause~stgntficant
Y a Y'a a
cerra 'e ~Fb .5• C~" "a§. tJ
nmentai impa acctsAmaor der~to e) n o v - ac umaintatn~ao+Svceptabl- k.zivf ae.6
envi~oyk~~e~s~ervtos~response~ tt des oG~?
yothe~, perto~mance fobyectives for an°y~of~the pubhgserv~
a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑
c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Other public facilities? El El El 0
1Y4~; Recreat(on , 3T 11~.'R'5~ A ° V 44X&"' 5 k. A' s L i ru gd at
1 lC
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 19
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
a r r a " p~ std %~LessaThana~
y~r~wPotent ally Signif cant~ss,'~h~a~n rs t
Ms & In t sip, h
ra ~y xx m „ x§ Significant With 4Significanta w Nox
>.~Lr cs ,;EnvlronmCntal Issuesr ~','t Impactg' *Mii!Fa on3 Impact slmpact~
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 capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by ❑ ❑ ❑
the county congestion management
agency for designated roads 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 19
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ❑ ❑ ❑
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
Z~I '1.Would the pro~ect~~ a , , z e -
_,?x Y. f _m. • ~-5.{c e.:u bs.,.-, va. ~b k'~15~ry%`~''• r4~~fi, fkd.~.'iq~k. a .?..~C
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional ❑ ❑ ❑
Water Quality 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
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
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?
Initial Studv Environmental Checklist
jc r ~""tvt ~'L! r r~9Y h4~"v{~i ~ r'Y}~s:" ~+~i~`~ x gut t~Xf.. su +!"SF~'+d~:
t~FnY'~}~'SA~l"~b"~ T+~r 'fY`SG~'~ :f~v`~SiT~e~ ~FA~g Ifcaan_.t~Wltli'~~4: ~,Slgnificant k{'"~N°~.
pf,,~;,Tlr~~~.,?fir,;,,Env~ronmental~lssues~~,;}~,~~ T~ <<Impacts,~,~Mingation,~~~~lmpacthi'~~Impactle) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project 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
permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ❑
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid ❑ ❑ ❑
waste?
*0 rv. t xu to ~ w.,r ~r..w a°.*~F 3 t' K• y ' . r a+' s r r T
~17•f Mandato Fmdln s ofESl nlflcance 5' f $t3pwa
rY 9e a. 9 s xe > .a~_ . . a. ~..,NQM4
a)M 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 range 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
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?
10
Initial Studv Environmental Checklist
The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed use would
not
result in a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the preceding checklist and
supported by substantial evidence provided in this document.
F-1
Aesthetics
El
Agriculture
El Air Quality
Resources
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils
El
Hazards & Hazardous
❑
Hydrology/Water
El Land Use/Planning
Materials
Quality
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise ❑ Population/Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic
❑
Utilities/Services
Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of Significance
11
Initial Studv Environmental Checklist
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
® 1 find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment,
and a Negative Declaration will 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 measure based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ 1 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 EIR or Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signed Date
12
Initial
SECTION 2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AESTHETICS
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
aesthetic impacts as a result of this project.
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to agricultural resources as a result of this project.
3. AIR QUALITY
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. However, there could be an
impact to air quality as there could be an increase in vehicle trips from patrons who
would be required to travel elsewhere to purchase goods from other poultry slaughter
businesses. Given that there are numerous other poultry slaughter facilities in the
general area, the impact to air quality would be de minimus.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to biological resources as a result of this project.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to cultural resources as a result of this project.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to geology and soils as a result of this project.
13
Initial Study
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to hazards and hazardous materials as a result of this project.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to hydrology and water quality as a result of this project.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to land use and planning as a result of this project.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to mineral resources as a result of this project.
11. NOISE
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
noise impacts as a result of this project.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to population and housing as a result of this project.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to public services as a result of this project.
14. RECREATION
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to recreation as a result of this project.
14
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. However, there could be an
increase in vehicle trips from patrons who would be required to travel elsewhere to
purchase goods from other poultry slaughter businesses. Given that there are
numerous other poultry slaughter facilities in the general area, the impact to
transportation/traffic would be de minimus.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to utilities and service systems as a result of this project.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there are no
mandatory findings of significance that need to be made.
15
Initial
SECTION 3
REFERENCES
1. City of Rosemead General Plan, October 14, 2008
2. City of Rosemead Municipal Code
16
ORDINANCE NO. 883
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY
SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) On May 14, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 683, Which eliminated
poultry and rabbit slaughter as permitted uses within the M-1 zone of the City.
(b) Pursuant to Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter17.12, legal nonconforming businesses
established after the effective date of Chapter 17.12 may continue in operation, but are not
permitted to expand.
(c) There are presently existing in the City one or more, nonconforming poultry slaughter
businesses. Given the present zoning of the City of Rosemead, such business(es) are located in
close proximity to existing residential properties.. This proximity results in the concerns related
to the health and general welfare of surrounding properties and uses. More specifically, and with
regard to one business in particular, the slaughter of poultry has resulted in complaints
concerning odor and improper elimination of waste products, as evidenced by public testimony
before the City Council on numerous occasions. Further, complaints have been made to the
Regional Water ,Quality Control Board as well as the Los Angeles County Public Works and
Health Departments for excessive odor and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) violations. Finally, the presence of large numbers of live chickens and the slaughter of
same creates health concerns in terms of possible propagation of Avian and or H1N1 flu (a
combination'bf swine and avian flu strains).
(d) It is well established that through zoning, the city may eliminate nonconforming uses as
rapidly as is consistent with the rights of users of the property. As of the effective date of this
ordinance, any legal ,"nonconforming businesses in the City will have had the opportunity to
operate for over 18 years. The City Council finds that this over eighteen year period when
combined with the additional three years provided by this ordinance is a reasonable period of
time for such uses to either be made conforming or be eliminated and for such businesses to have
recouped their investment in the depreciable aspects of such businesses.
(e) Nothing in this ordinance is intended to authorize, legalize, or permit the establishment,
operation, or maintenance of any business, building, or use which violates any city ordinance or
any statute of the State of California regarding public nuisances, health and safety or zoning.
LA #4843-6862-0292 v1
EXHIBIT C
SECTION 2. Amendments to Section 17.12.060.
Section 17.12.105 of Chapter 17.12 of Title 17 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code
is hereby added to read as follows
"Section 17.12.105 Amortization of Nonconformine Poultry Slaughter Businesses.
A. Amortization period. After December 31, 2012, no person may cause, allow, or
permit the continued operation, maintenance or use of a lot, building or structure as a
legal nonconforming poultry slaughter business, unless such use is granted an
extension pursuant to subsections C and D of this section. -For the purposes of this
section, the term "legal nonconforming poultry slaughter business" means any poultry
slaughter business use which was legally established and lawfully operating on May
14, 1991, which is the date upon which the ordinance repealing such use as a
permitted use was adopted.
B. Early termination. Any discontinuance or abandonment of a legal nonconforming
poultry slaughtering business for a period of 30 consecutive days will result in a loss
of the legal nonconforming status of such use.
C. Extension application. The owner of a legal nonconforming poultry slaughtering
business or the owner of the property upon which such use exists, may file an
application with the community development director for an extension of the
amortization period in accordance with the following procedures:
1. The application must be filed at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the
amortization period; established in subsection A. The filing fee for the application
will be the "same as that for a variance as established by the city council.
2. The application'must state the additional length of time requested for the
amortization and the grounds for requesting such an extension of time including
but not necessarily limited to information relevant to the criteria set forth in
subsection D.
3. Within 30 calendar days following the receipt of a complete application, the
community development director shall set the matter for a hearing.
D. Decision on extension application. The City Council will hold a public hearing at
which time all evidence and testimony regarding the request for an extension of the
amortization period will be considered. The burden will be on the applicant to
establish that the extension should be granted. In rendering a decision, the City
Council must consider the following factors:
The poultry slaughtering business owner's or property owner's financial
investment in the business, in particular the amount of investment prior to notice
of the city's intent to amortize existing legal nonconforming poultry slaughtering
businesses, which for the purposes of this chapter was November 2009.
2. The present actual and depreciated value of business improvements.
LA 44843-6862-0292 vi _2_
3. The applicable Internal Revenue Service depreciation schedules.
4. The remaining useful life of the business improvements.
5. The cost of relocating the business.
6. The ability of the business owner or property owner to change the use to a
conforming use.
7. The good faith efforts made to recoup the investment and to relocate the use
8. The effects of the poultry slaughtering business on the health, safety and welfare
of surrounding businesses and uses if the business were to be permitted to extend
the amortization period.
The decision must be in writing and must include findings in"support of the decision
to grant or deny any extension of the amortization period. The decision must be hand
delivered or sent by certified mail to the applicant within 20 business days of the
hearing.
E. The decision of the City Council will be final and subject to judicial review pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.8.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and
each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or
unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION A Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the
manner required by law., .
LA #4843-6862-0292 vl _3_
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph M. Monies, City Attorney
day of 2009.
LA 94843-6862-0292 v 1 _4_