CC - Item 6A - Municipal Code Amendment 09-04, desing review approval for any dwelling development with a living area equal to or esceeding 2,500 sq. ft.ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 12, 2010 V - `
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-04, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEW
APPROVAL FOR ANY DWELLING DEVELOPED WITH A LIVING
AREA EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING TWO THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED (2,500) SQUARE FEET IN THE R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)
ZONES
SUMMARY
Municipal Code Amendment 09-04 is a City initiated amendment that proposes to amend
the Zoning Ordinance to require a Design Review (DR) entitlement application for any
dwelling unit developed with a total living area equal to or exceeding two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet in R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple
Residential) zones. Currently a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for such
dwellings that equal or exceed two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet.
Under the current regulations, the application fee for review of a CUP for large homes in
the R-1 and R-2 zones is $1,000. If the proposed Municipal Code Amendment is
adopted, there would be a cost savings for the homeowners due to the fact the fee for a
Design Review application is $800. It is also important to note that the Design Review
process will not alter the time that it will take the City to process the discretionary
approval of a large home in the R-1 and R-2 zones.
On December 7, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 09-24
recommending approval of this municipal code amendment to the City Council. The
Planning Commission staff report, Resolution No 09-04, and draft meeting minutes have
been attached to this report (Exhibits A through C respectively).
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impacts finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment. Staff further recommends that the Council introduce Ordinance No. 886
(Attachment D) for first reading, approving Municipal Code Amendment 09-04,
modifying the Zoning Ordinance with respect to Design Review approval requirements
for large homes in the in the R-1 and R-2 zones.
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA:
ITEM NO, (OA
City Council Meeting
January 12, 2010
Pace 2 of 3
Proiect History
The City has regulated large home construction with the CUP review process since
1991. In recent years, the dwelling size threshold for which a CUP.is required has been
modified twice. Ordinance 851 increased the CUP threshold from two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet to three thousand (3,000) square feet in July 2007. In July
2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 876, which reduced the CUP threshold
back to two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet. The City Council also directed
staff to review the discretionary review procedures for such large dwelling units to
determine if a CUP was the most appropriate application or if a different type of
discretionary application would better serve the City.
ANALYSIS
Ordinance No. 851 and the Single-Family Residential Guidelines have been in effect for
nearly two years. Since 2007 only one CUP application for a large home has been
processed. A CUP is generally used to review uses that are not otherwise permitted in a
zone and have potentially detrimental impacts that merit a case-by-case review. A
Design Review process is generally intended as more of an architectural evaluation of
the consistency of a building's design with zoning regulations (i.e. setbacks, articulation,
etc) and design guidelines in order to ensure good design and compatibility with
surrounding land uses.
There are two findings that currently must be made in order to approve a CUP for large
homes in the R-1 and R-2 zones. The review criteria for the current Design Review
process in Section 17.72.050 of the RMC provides a more comprehensive set of design
and compatibility standards to use by staff and the Planning Commission when
reviewing large homes in the R-1 and R-2 zones. The six required Design Review
findings ensure more consideration is given to the exterior design of the project and
relationship between the location, design and compatibility of the proposed project to
the surrounding area than the two findings in the CUP chapter.
The Design Review procedures in the RMC also include very specific application
submittal content requirements (i.e., site plans, elevations, decorative elements,
material boards) which facilitates a technical review of a building's design, whereas
there are no specific submittal requirements in the CUP chapter of the RMC and the
findings are more general in nature. Changing the entitlement procedure for large home
development from a CUP to a Design Review process will only provide additional review
criteria and findings that will further improve home design in the community.
The Municipal Code Amendment also includes some minor clean-up revisions to the
Design Review procedures themselves (RMC Section 17.72.040) to remove obsolete
language regarding the number of sets of architectural plans that must be submitted.
The approval procedure for the Design Review process (RMC Section 17.72.060) is
also proposed to be revised to clarify that the noticing requirements established for
other types of discretionary review currently outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the RMC will
also be required for Design Review. Additionally, staff recommends changing the
appeal period for Design'Review applications from 15 days to 10 days. This would
City Council Meeting
January 12, 2010
Page 3 of 3
make the appeal period consistent with all other discretionary applications (i.e., CUP's,
zone changes, subdivisions, etc) in the City.
Lastly, to maintain consistency between the Rosemead Municipal Code and Single-
Family Residential Design Guidelines, staff further proposes to amend the introduction
discussion in the design guidelines, which states the current CUP threshold. The
proposed modification is highlighted on page 5 of the Single-Family Residential Design
Guidelines, in the attached City Council Ordinance No. 886 - Exhibit "A."
On December 7, 2009, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing. Upon hearing all testimonies from the public, the Commission
unanimously recommended approval of this municipal code amendment to the City
Council. The Planning Commission also made findings of environmental adequacy.
Environmental Determination
An Initial Study of Environmental Impacts was prepared recommending the adoption of
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration are attached to this report as Attachment E). This study found that there are
no potentially significant environmental impacts that could occur with the adoption of the
proposed code amendment.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Prepared by:
C'N~.f 4VVVv
Paul Garry
Senior Planner
Submitted by:
Community
Attachments
Attachment A:
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 7, 2009
Attachment B:
Planning Commission Resolution 09-24
Attachment C:
Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 7, 2009
Attachment D:
Ordinance No. 886
Attachment E:
Negative Declaration and Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Director
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2009
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-04, AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR ANY
DWELLING DEVELOPED WITH A LIVING AREA EQUAL TO OR
EXCEEDING TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (2,500) SQUARE
FEET IN THE R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (LIGHT
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) ZONES
SUMMARY
Municipal Code Amendment 09-04 is a City initiated amendment that proposes to amend
the Zoning Ordinance to require a Design Review (DR) entitlement application for any
dwelling unit developed with a total living area equal to or exceeding two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet in R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple
Residential) zones. Currently a Conditional Use Permit is required for such dwellings
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet.
Environmental Determination
An Initial Study of Environmental Impacts was prepared recommending the adoption of
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration are attached to this report as Attachment A). The Initial Study is an
environmental analysis of the proposed municipal code amendment to determine if the
proposed revisions to the municipal code will have potentially significant effects on the
environment. This study 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 November 17, 2009 and December 7, 2009. If the
Commission is inclined to recommend approval of this project, the Commission must
make findings of adequacy with the environmental assessment and recommend that the
City Council adopt the Negative Declaration.
ATTACHEMENT A
Planning Commission Meeting
December 7, 2009
Page 2 of 6
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. 09-24
(Attachment B), a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No.
886 (Attachment C), modifying the Zoning Ordinance with respect to Design Review
requirements in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential)
zones.
Project History
On July 19, 2007 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 851, which amended several
sections of Chapters 17.12, 17.16, 17.20 and 17.112 of the Rosemead Municipal Code
relating to single-family residential design standards. The adoption of Ordinance No.
851 made significant changes to the development standards in the R-1 and R-2 zones.
The most significant changes included, but were not limited to, restricting the number of
detached single-family dwellings in the R-1 zone to one dwelling per lot regardless of lot
size, lowering the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 45% to a maximum
of 35% to 40%, and changing the CUP requirement for large dwellings from those that
equal or exceed 2,500 square feet of living area to those that exceed 3,000 square feet
of living area.
On July 28, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 876, which among other
things, reduced the CUP threshold for large dwelling units in the R-1 and R-2 zones
from 3,000 to 2,500 square feet. The CUP threshold was lowered due to concern that
large dwellings were still impacting neighborhoods, even though they satisfied the
design development standards in the R-1 and R-2 zones. The City council determined
that although the design standards have been successful in achieving good home
design, any home with a developed living area of two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet is still considered large and could impact adjacent properties and
compromise neighborhood quality.
Subsequent to this action, the City Council asked staff to review the discretionary review
procedures for such large dwelling units to determine if some other type of discretionary
review process might be more appropriate than a CUP.
ANALYSIS
Ordinance No. 851 and the Single-Family Residential Guidelines have been in effect for
nearly two years. It is staff's opinion that both the new design standards and guidelines
have been very beneficial in promoting the orderly transition of residential
neighborhoods, protecting property values, encouraging excellence in architectural
ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission Meeting
December 7, 2009
Page 3 of 6
design, preserving neighborhood compatibility, and providing design flexibility.
However, after both analyzing the effectiveness of the development standards and
researching/surveying requirements of other cities in the San Gabriel valley-region it is
staff's opinion that it would be good zoning practice to require Design Review for large
dwellings in the R-1 and R-2 zones instead of a Conditional Use Permit.
Residential CUP Requirement
In 1991, the Rosemead City Council adopted Ordinance No. 689 in an attempt to
regulate and mitigate the physical impacts of large home construction within the R-1
and R-2 zoning districts. Ordinance No. 689 required any developer or property owner
seeking to construct a new single-family home, or an addition to an existing residence
which created a total living area that exceeded 2,500 square feet in size, to first obtain
approval of a CUP through the public hearing process. Ordinance No. 851 increased
the CUP threshold to three thousand (3,000) square feet, and maintained the following
two findings that still have to be made by the Planning Commission:
a. The granting of such conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
established character of the surrounding neighborhood or be injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is
located.
b. Architecture of the dwellings shall be consistent with and/or complementary to
the surrounding neighborhood to assure the neighborhood's integrity and the
character of the community.
These same findings were also maintained in Ordinance No. 876, which reduced the
CUP threshold back to 2,500 square feet on July 28, 2009.
A CUP is generally used to review uses that are not otherwise permitted in a zone and
have potentially detrimental impacts that merit a case-by-case review. A Design Review
process is generally intended as more of an architectural evaluation of the consistency
of a buildings design with zoning regulations (i.e. setbacks, articulation, etc) and design
guidelines in order to ensure good design and compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Staff contacted twelve cities in the San Gabriel Valley area and found that that no cities
use a CUP process for architectural review of residential projects. Several of these
cities require just staff level review for residential projects requiring special attention.
Several cities (including Arcadia, Duarte, San Gabriel) have established Architectural
Review Commissions or Design Review Boards to review large residential projects
(both single-family and multi-family). For instance, the City of Monterey Park requires
Design Review,Board approval for dwelling units greater than 3,000 square feet and
Alhambra requires Design Review approval for large additions to single-family
dwellings.
ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission Meeting
December 7, 2009
Page 4 of 6
As indicated above, there are two findings that currently must be made in order to
approve a CUP for large homes in the R-1 and R-2 zones. The following review criteria
for the current Design Review process in Section 17.72.050 of the RMC provides a
more comprehensive set of design and compatibility standards to use by staff and the
Planning Commission when reviewing large homes in the R-1 and R-2 zones:
A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the
proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for
the general neighborhood;
8. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the
manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are
protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an
adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical
equipment, trash, storage and loading areas;
C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and
appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or
site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local
environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value;
D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed
developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances
where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as
being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or
immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates
building shape, size or style;
E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code
and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of
the buildings and structures are involved; and
F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs,
landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper
consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site
development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual
effect of the development from the view of public streets. (Prior code
§ 9119.4)
These six required Design Review findings ensure more consideration is given to the
exterior design of the project and relationship between the location, design and
compatibility of the proposed project to the surrounding area than the two findings in the
CUP chapter.
The Design Review procedures in the RMC also include very specific application
submittal content requirements (i.e., site plans, elevations, decorative elements,
material boards) which facilitates a technical review of a building's design whereas there
ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission Meeting
December 7, 2009
Page 5 of 6
are no specific submittal requirements in the CUP chapter of the RMC and the findings
are more general in nature. Changing the entitlement procedure for large home
development from a CUP to a Design Review process will only provide additional review
criteria and findings that will further improve, home design in the community.
Under the current regulations, the application fee for review of a CUP for large homes in
the R-1 and R-2 zones is $1,000. If the proposed Municipal Code Amendment is
adopted, there would be a cost savings for the homeowners due to the fact the fee for a
Design Review application is $800. It is also important to note that the Design Review
process will not alter the time that it will take the City to process the discretionary
approval of a large home in the R-1 and R-2 zones.
The Municipal Code Amendment also includes some minor clean-up revisions to the
Design Review procedures themselves (RMC Section 17.72.040) to remove obsolete
language regarding the number of sets of architectural plans that must be submitted.
The Planning Division currently requires 15 sets of plans to be submitted with a Design
Review application and not six as stated in the municipal code. It is staff's opinion that
the number of plans does not need to be defined in the municipal code as it is an
administrative requirement that is currently outlined in the application.
The approval procedure for the Design Review process (RMC Section 17.72.060) is
also proposed to be revised to clarify that the noticing requirements established for
other types of discretionary review currently outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the RMC will
also be required for Design Review. Additionally, staff recommends changing the
appeal period for Design Review applications from 15 days to 10 days. This would
make the appeal period consistent with all other discretionary applications (i.e., CUP's,
zone changes, subdivisions, etc) in the City.
To maintain consistency between the Rosemead Municipal Code and Single-Family
Residential Design Guidelines, staff further proposes to amend the introduction
discussion in the design guidelines, which states the current CUP threshold. Staffs
proposed modification is highlighted on page 5 of the Single-Family Residential Design
Guidelines, in the attached Planning Commission Resolution - Exhibit "A."
Conclusion
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment to require Design Review approval for
homes that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet in the R-1 and R-2 zones instead of a
Conditional Use Permit will ensure that residential architecture is consistent and
complementary to the surrounding neighborhood and provides staff and the Planning
Commission better tools and guidance to review a projects consistency with the
character of the neighborhood in which a project is located.
ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission Meeting
December 7, 2009
Page 6 of 6
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the required public posting requirements of the
regular agenda notification process for Municipal Code Text Amendments, pursuant to
Section 17.116.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
Paul Garry ✓ Sheri Bermejo
Senior Planner Principal Planner
Attachments:
A. Initial Study of Environmental Impacts and Negative Declaration
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-24
C. Draft Ordinance No. 886
ATTACHMENT A
PC RESOLUTION 09-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR ANY
DWELLING WITH A DEVELOPED LIVING AREA EQUAL TO OR
EXCEEDING TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (2,500) SQUARE FEET
IN R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL) ZONES
WHEREAS, the City currently has provisions in its Municipal Code that require a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for any dwelling unit with a total living area that exceeds
two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the current CUP review process is not
the most appropriate discretionary review application for addressing large home
development; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to change the single-family residential development
standards and has initiated an ordinance amendment; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.116.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets'forth
procedures and requirements for municipal code amendments; 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, 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 November 17, 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 December 7, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal
Code Amendment 09-04; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Rosemead as follows:
1 ATTACHMENT B
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 09-04.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
that Municipal Code Amendment 09-04 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 09-04 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan
as follows:
A. Land Use: Municipal Code Amendment 09-04 consists of requiring
approval of a Design Review (DR) entitlement application for any dwelling unit
developed with a total living area equal to or exceeding two thousand five hundred
(2,500) square feet in R-1 '(Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple
Residential) zones. Requiring Design Review for dwellings with two thousand five
hundred (2,500) or more square feet of living area will provide a zoning regulation that
ensures that residential architecture is consistent with and complementary to the
surrounding neighborhood to assure the neighborhood's integrity and the character of
the community.
B. Circulation: Potential impacts to traffic and transportation depend on the
extent of a proposed project and local conditions. Each new proposed residential
project will be required to provide efficient vehicular access to the site. Furthermore,
residential additions and new home development will be required to satisfy the parking
requirements outlined in the municipal code.
C. Housing: The proposed municipal code amendment will not induce
substantial new population growth nor displace existing housing units or people. The
municipal code amendment is not proposing a higher density than what is already
established in the City's General Plan. Furthermore, the municipal code amendment
will not alter the current allowable maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the R-1 or R-2
zones. Therefore, the amount of living area on a lot will continue to be regulated by the
existing standards. Lastly, adopting the Design Review procedures will promote and
ensure a thorough process to regulate higher architectural quality when larger homes
are proposed.
D. Resource Management: Any proposed development resulting from this
municipal code amendment would be located in a developed urban area, and as such,
2 ATTACHMENT B
will not result in any impact upon natural resources. Proposed developments will be
required to provide adequate landscaped areas in the overall site plan.
E. Noise: The proposed development will not generate any permanent
impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. New development shall be required to
comply with the City's Noise Ordinance.
F. Public Safety: Impacts to law or fire enforcement, parks, and public
facilities are area or community specific. The proposed municipal code amendment
would not impact police, fire, or school services, and there would be no change in
demand for or use of public parks. The entire City of Rosemead is located in Flood
Zone C (flood insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any flood hazard
designations.
SECTION 4. CODE AMENDMENT. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Section 17.16.025 (Uses permitted with Design Review) be added to
the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows:
17.16.025 Uses permitted with Design Review.
Design Review approval subject to approval of a precise plan of design pursuant to the
procedures in Chapter 17.72 of this Title, shall be required for:
A. Any new dwelling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet of developed living area.
B. Any addition to a dwelling unit in which the total floor area with the addition
equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of developed
living area.
SECTION 5. CODE AMENDMENT. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Subsection A of Section 17.16.130 (Lot Coverage) of the Rosemead
Municipal Code be amended as follows:
A. Floor-Area Ratio (FAR). Residential development shall not have a floor-area ratio
that exceeds thirty-five (35) percent, to be calculated pursuant to Section
17.04.020. An additional five percent may be obtained through use of the design
incentive program outlined in Section 17.16.260. I^ addi'i^^ residential
dwelling that o eeds thFee thousand (3,000) square feet ^f Wing area shall
nditi, aI , permit ^ , ^^'tG Se^fi^^ 17 117 030
SECTION 6. CODE AMENDMENT. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Section 17.20.025 (Uses permitted with Design Review) be added to
the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows:
3 ATTACHMENT B
17.20.025 Uses permitted with Design Review.
Design Review approval subiect to approval of a precise plan of design pursuant to the
procedures in Chapter 17.72 of this Title, shall be required for:
A. Any new dwelling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet of developed living area.
B. Any addition to a dwelling unit in which the total floor area with the addition
equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of developed
living area.
SECTION 7. CODE AMENDMENT. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Subsection A of Section 17.20.130 (Lot Coverage) of the Rosemead
Municipal Code be amended as follows:
A. Floor-Area Ratio (FAR). Residential development shall not have a floor-area ratio
that exceeds thirty-five (35) percent, to be calculated pursuant to Section
17.04.020. An additional five percent may be obtained through use of the design
incentive program outlined in Section 17.16.260, to be calculated pursuant to
Section 17.04.020. In . ddit'e ' any reSideRti^' dwelling that eXGeeds three
area
thousand (3,000) cn,rar r e feet of liVan shall require onrl't'enal use permit
PUFSuaRt to cent'^^l17.112.030.
SECTION 8. CODE AMENDMENT. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Subsection A of Section 17.72.040 (Application - Content and fee) of
the Rosemead Municipal Code be amended as follows:
A. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the erection, alteration, addition to or
enlargement of, or the moving or relocation of, any building or structure, in the D
Zone, or any building or structure requiring a precise plan of design, an
application and plans shall be submitted with six sets of ^'a^° to the Planning
Department. Such application and plans shall be on a form prescribed by the
Planning Commission. A fee, as established by Council resolution, shall be paid
upon the filing of such application.
SECTION 9. CODE AMENDMENT. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Section 17.72.060 (Approval Procedure) of the Rosemead Municipal
Code be amended as follows:
Application
for approval of a precise plan of design
shall be made
with the
Director of
Planning, subject to the procedures set
forth in Chapter
17.124,
except as
otherwise soecifically provided in this
chapter. If the
Director
determines that the plans conform to the provisions of this chapter, and the
policies adopted by the Planning Commission hereunder, the Director shall
endorse his or her approval thereon in writing to the Planning Commission for
4 ATTACHMENT B
their concurrence. When the plans for an approval do not arbitrarily alter the
appearance of the property, the only approval required shall be that of the
Director of Planning.
SECTION 10. CODE AMENDMENT. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Section 17.72.070 (Appeals) of the Rosemead Municipal Code be
amended as follows:
The applicant or any person. aggrieved by the decision of the Planning
Commission may file an appeal to the City Council on any ruling by the Planning
Commission by filing a written request on forms provided by the Planning
Department. The appeal shall be filed within ten f;#leeR (1045) days after such
hearing, setting forth alleged inconsistency or nonconformity with procedures or
criteria set forth in or pursuant to this. code. The filing shall suspend any building
permit until final action.
The City Council shall hold a hearing on the appeal and shall render its decision
thereon within forty (40) days after the filing thereof. The City Council may
approve, disapprove or modify the decision of the Planning Commission, and its
decision shall be final.
If significant new evidence is presented with the appeal which may include
substantial changes to the original proposal, the Council may refer the matter
back to the Planning Commission, in which case the Planning Commission's
decision shall be final.
SECTION 11. CODE AMENDMENT. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Subsection 26 of Section 17.112.030 (Uses permitted in specific
zones) of the Rosemead Municipal Code be deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 12. The Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead does hereby
recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment to the "Single-Family
Residential Design Guidelines" attached hereto as Exhibit 'A'.
SECTION 13. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of Municipal Code Amendment 09-04, requiring Design
Review for any dwelling unit with a total living area of two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet or more in R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple
Residential) zones.
SECTION 14., This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
SECTION 15. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on December 7, 2009 by the following vote:
YES:
5 ATTACHMENT B
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SECTION 16. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7th day of December 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 7th day of
December, 2009, by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Sheri Bermejo, Secretary
6 ATTACHMENT B
EXHIBIT A
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL D
ESIGN GUIDELINES
a E2
m
m
m c'
o Z a
)s
m
_
a`n)°ov°))mwj>
U
o
EmQ--§
L a C O O U
E
a
° L N 0 N
°
.-L a)
2 c
a> O m m
m
N
ma)
-
LL i a) L a
S m C 0) N L
>C m
C
m
a) m`. N
> C
>
N
w~ca cw~
m
O
f
m3o
`0(v
L O
0) •
O
a)
O s 0
C .
U)
X C:
n 0) a i m
m
m\ E c= ~
I
N. C a) C
C or m s N .C m
N
O
C B -O .
C CO C>
° E
°
° ~ Q m fm (D
N> U N U O-
a)
t
U O LL w 7
3 O' E to O C
Q) a) c
~
2Q 7 N= -.N
a
m `o 2 °)°c m 3
vi
`u'
o o m
Z
a) c m y mr o
E
m
m E x ESo
w~'C
mc
a)
EE20
,
m
~
m. a
-
X (D
m
°
O)~a O
o C.) c E c
N
m
2
m.c
a)
m EF m U
.
3` c:' E ms
w
c
a)
U
0 CD
Oa y OU N
D
)
m c a
2 Oa O)C
E
•y
I X O
CD
U)
in a)
C N N
O
0
L
Q
a)
a) L N
U
m
W
a)
U m
~
E
Q) O C C O) "
e
.
E
m
d.0 0).- a) C
O
F'
d-
0
O m m 0 m La O
V)
V
O a) N N 3
9
ry
) a 3 t m c c
>
o m
-
7
m
a°
N
LA.
a) O O O 0
~O
°
2
'
- N ~a N
a)
m>
C
U
U)
a
. y en
t
Q
X
0
_
_ L
T) C,4 LL
x
(D
(D 0
cn
(n 0
a
) 'o
> O)m E o..L., a
a) m
rj) o
N O m
_r CD 0- 0 "
w
0-
2
-0 0 Q
N a)
W U>
O m cu m
N L C C a)
. Qm a
3
C
N
a) U
C'
Q
}
0Z
O O)
`n
~
h
f
N O` O ~w y
'
-
p
N
F
ZQ
rn
u
)
cu E
m 7
m rn
6 C O_ - U m 0 0
a N
J Q
co
m O E a
0) m L U CL
N
In U)
Q
L C Q •x a a)
a)
`n U m a) c m a
c m
L
O'
>
C
-o
a
W O
O
o
U o m
C
E
.
a.
~
_
° E o c Q m
1m
N
Z
❑ F W o
(n
O a)
m a) m r>
U Q m a) u!
a) m
Q W LL. C
- a) O a) a
U) -°ar - x-
°
F
~W
cQ
w~
O)a) O 7)~ (a
Cy
W
-
J2oE
Q
~O O
3 o t° m a°) >
3 g
U~ Q z
n rn
E
m
OL U O
E a) :r
- U
U) < w
.
a
i
NOLL c y~
L
y-
O~ C O O N
O N
CD
E -O , N N
0 -i5
.
t w C a) m a) m
f- 0 a) C a m C m
t:3
m N° m Q
N
Minutes of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 7, 2009
The regular meeting of the Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairwoman Herrera at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard,
Rosemead, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Ruiz
INVOCATION - Commissioner Hunter
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: Commissioners Eng; Hunter, Ruiz, Vice-
Chairman Alarcon, Chairwoman Herrera
OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Greg Murphy,;Community Development Director
Saeki, Principal Planner Bermejo, Senior Planner Garry,. Assistant Planner Trinh,
Commission Secretary Lockwood
1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS
Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE `
None
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes - November 16, 2009
Commissioner Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eng, to approve
Minutes of November 16, 2009 as presented.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: 'None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-04 - AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR ANY
DWELLING DEVELOPED WITH A LIVING AREA EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING
TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (2,500) SQUARE FEET IN THE R-1
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)
ZONES - Municipal Code Amendment 09-04 is a City initiated amendment
that proposes to amend the Zoning Ordinance to require a Design Review
entitlement application for any dwelling unit developed with a total living
ATTACHMENT C
area equal to or exceeding two.thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet in
R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones.
Currently a Conditional Use Permit is required for such dwellings that equal
or exceed 2,500 square feet.
PC RESOLUTION 09-24- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE
ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR ANY
DWELLING WITH A DEVELOPED LIVING AREA EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING
TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (2,500) SQUARE FEET IN R-1 (SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) ZONES.
Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT
Resolution No. 09-24 (Attachment B), a resolution recommending that the
City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 886 (Attachment C), modifying the
Zoning Ordinance with respect to Design Review requirements in the R-1
(Single Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones.
Senior Planner Garry presented staff report.
Commissioner Eng questioned staff if Municipal Code Amendment 09-04 will require
property owners to do both a Conditional Use Permit and a Design Review.
Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the Conditional Use Permit process would be
eliminated and replaced with a Design Review requirement.
Commissioner Eng asked staff liow long the Design Review process would take.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the normal process is one to three months.
Commissioner Eng questioned staff what will happen to Ordinance No. 876
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that this new ordinance would take its place with
respect to the review procedures for large home development.
Commissioner Eng requested clarification section 10, on page 4 of the ordinance.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that this section refers to 17.124 of the Rosemead
Municipal Code, which covers general application procedures for entitlement
applications.
Commissioner Hunter questioned staff if there are any ordinances that restrict the
building of mini-mansions.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that each Design Review application will have to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission. She also stated that each application will have
to comply with the City's development standards.
Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff if certain architectural styles have been established
for residential development. He stated that we have to set a standard so new homes are
ATTACHMENT C
compatible with the surrounding homes in the neighborhood.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the Design Review guidelines have been
established, and that homeowners are encouraged to design their homes so that they
blend in with the surrounding homes in neighborhood.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated we have not seen too many Conditional Use
Permits since 2007.
Commissioner Ruiz stated with 2,500 square feet there are still a lot of options and it
is still possible to build a beautiful home.
Chairwoman Herrera stated we will now open the Public Hearing and questioned if there
was anyone in favor.
None
Chairwoman Herrera questioned if there was anyone against
None
Chairwoman Herrera closed the Public Hearing
Commissioner Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chairman Alarcon, to
ADOPT Resolution No. 09-24 (Attachment B); a,resolution recommending that the
City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 886 (Attachment C), modifying the Zoning
Ordinance with respect to Design Review requirements in the R-1 (Single Family
Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
B. DESIGN . REVIEW 00-81 (MODIFICATION) - Rosemead Place, LLC has
submitted an application to modify Design Review 00-81, requesting to
amend the existing master sign program for Rosemead Place Shopping
Center, located at 3506-3684 Rosemead Boulevard in the C3-D (Medium
Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone.
PC RESOLUTION 09-25- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 00-81 (MODIFICATION), TO
AMEND THE EXISTING MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR ROSEMEAD PLACE
SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED AT 3506-3684 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD IN
THE C3-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE
(APNS: 8594-023-034, 042, 044, & 045).
Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
ATTACHMENT C
APPROVE Design Review 00-81 (Modification) for a period of one (1) year
and adopt Resolution 09-25, subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit "B"
attached hereto.
Assistant Planner Trinh presented staff report.
Commissioner Eng questioned staff if the lettering style is changing at all under the
strategic plan.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated no, there is not a specific font outlined in the master
sign program.
Community Development Director Saeki questioned Commissioner Eng if you are asking
about the strategic plan that was just approved. He stated that there is no specific
mention of a font for signs. He also stated the overall objective of the strategic plan is to
create a cohesive environment.
Commissioner Eng questioned staff in regards to traffic. She asked if there are any
obstruction concerns with the directional signs.
Principal Planner Bermejo replied no.
Commissioner Eng questioned staff what lifestyle signs are.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated it is a new type of sign that uses photographs, which
will be placed in designated areas on Building B. She also stated that the signage will
be photographic images of people, holiday's; and seasons. She also stated that there
are Conditions of Approval that have been added so that no off -site advertisement is
allowed on lifestyle sign.
Commissioner Eng requested clarification. on Condition of Approval No. 3. She stated
that the approval period was for one year, and asked if it should be for six months.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that a Condition of Use Permit has a six month period
but provisions for Design Reviews are for one year.
Chairwoman Herrera opened the Public Hearing and invited applicant to podium
Catherine Distefano, representing Rosemead Place, stated that the murals proposed on
Building B are for curb:appeal. She stated that the images will display holiday decor
which will be visible from the 1 -10 Freeway, and that the use of the imagery will get
people to stop and shop. She also stated the monument signs will be renovated with
colors to match the buildings onsite.
Commissioner Eng questioned applicant to when she anticipates starting upgrades.
Catherine Distefano stated that she is ready to start now.
Commissioner Hunter thanked Catherine Distefano for doing this project and stated it
will look very nice.
4 ATTACHMENT C
Chairwoman Herrera asked if there anyone in favor of this project
Brian Lewin stated that he likes signs updated and hopes that Mayumba is included in
the new sign program. He also stated that he has two reservations about the project.
He also questioned if the signs have been evaluated for visibility issues in regards to
placement and size, since they are located near entrances.
Principal Planner stated the signs were reviewed by the City's architectural review
committee, and staff believes they will not create any issues.
Brian Lewin stated he is not totally convinced with the lifestyle signage, and stated that
people on the 1-10 Freeway do not need a visual distraction. He also asked for
clarification as to if the signs were static or consisted of changing images.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated they will be images that do not change, and that the
applicant will need to come in and submit a new plan to put up a new image.
Commissioner Ruiz stated they will be static signs with images that can be changed with
seasons.
Chairwoman Herrera questioned if there was anyone against.
None
Chairwoman Herrera closed the Public Hearing.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Chairwoman Herrera to
APPROVE Design Review 00,-81 (Modification) for a period of one (1) year and
adopt Resolution 09-25, subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit "B".
Vote resulted in:
Yes:
Alarcon,.Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz
No:
None
Abstain:
None
Absent:
None
C. 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 - 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
which 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.
ATTACHMENT C
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 AMORATIZATION OF
NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES
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.
Community Development Director Saeki presented staff report
Commissioner Hunter questioned staff why this business is still operating after all these
years with all the violations this business has had.
Community Development Director Saeki stated that the City of Rosemead has done all
that they can do to bring Cal Poultry into compliance, and when other agencies and
entities investigated they did not warrant shutting the business down. He also stated
that City Attorney Murphy would be able to offer a legal perspective.
City Attorney Murphy stated that he did not have much more to add, and also stated
that when other bodies were given jurisdiction and took action, they did not recommend
or request that the City take any further action, and then there is not much the City can
do. He also stated that when the State or County states that the problems have
been solved, then the City considers it solved. He also stated that city staff has looked
at it and thinks abatement is the right thing to, do at this time, so as to resolve an on
going problem.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon.stated the City has done what it can and that the business has
had enough time to recoup their investments, and he feels three years is too long and he
recommends it be one year and he likes the ordinance, but he would like it changed
to 2010.
Commissioner Hunter stated she agrees with Vice-Chairman Alarcon and feels that
three years is too long. She also questioned staff if it takes that long for a business to
re-establish themselves.
Brian Saeki stated that amortization will allow the business to recuperate what they have
invested into the City. He also said that the legal staff recommended that three years
was a fair amount of time for the business to relocate and get re-established. He also
stated that if the Planning Commission would like to recommend to the City Council
a one year amortization that would be fine, and he also added that this was not
recommended by our City Attorney.
Commissioner Hunter questioned staff if in three years will they continue to do what they
are doing now for another three years.
6 ATTACHMENT C
Community Development Director Saeki stated that whatever day this amortization
comes into effect, they will still be required to fix all the problems they have today, if they
still want to remain in business. He also stated that after December 31, 2012, as
proposed in this ordinance, they will not be able to operate in the City of Rosemead.
Commissioner Eng questioned staff if the applicant or representative of business owner
was present tonight.
Community Development Director Saeki replied no.
Commissioner Eng stated.that with the chronology of events that staff presented, there
does not seem to appear consistent productive dialog between the City and the
business. She also stated the business was granted a Certificate of Occupancy in 1991
and then five months afterwards we adopted an ordinance to remove that use, but they
were permitted to operate for eight years. She also stated in 1997 they entered into an
Impact Agreement and paid eighteen thousand dollars to address traffic and parking
concerns. She also stated that the business' continued to operate and in 2006 they
were cited for code violations. She also stated1hat there has been inconsistency with
dealing with this business and there are numerous code,violations that still need to be
resolved so that this business can still operate. She stated we are all good neighbors
and a community that needs to work together. She stated she visited the business site
around 2:00 p.m., and without talking to anyone she walked around the site and
surrounding property. She noted the various. land uses surrounding the business and
described the inside the business. She said there were chickens being sold at the
address of 8932, no chickens were being sold at 8942; there was a good flow of
customers of diversity, and six to eight employees working. She stated that it is a
functional business that employs people and that is something we need to consider in
this economy. She also stated that there was an unpleasant odor that was very
apparent in front of the business, but did not notice it as much while walking along the
surrounding area. She also stated that odors cannot be blocked, and they are worse
during the summer. She concluded by stating that it is an established business, it is
employing people, it is providing a need for the community, it provides getting fresh
poultry without going far. She asked staff where the other fresh poultry businesses are
located that were stated in the staff report.
Community Development Director Saeki stated that staff did a search to find similar
types of uses imthe surrounding area and found there are several in Los Angeles; one or
two in the El Monte/South El Monte area; and about half a dozen within a five mile
radius. He also stafed'he contacted El Monte and South El Monte, and found that they
are in the same situation as Rosemead regarding Cal Poultry, so they will not be cities
considered for relocation. He said that there are other areas around Rosemead that will
allow these types of businesses.
Commissioner Ruiz stated that he would like to agree with Commissioner Alarcon and
Commissioner Hunter. He also stated that while he served on the Traffic Commission
with Commissioner Alarcon, and dealt with some of the traffic issues that have
been discussed, in reality they never were resolved. He also stated that he keeps in
touch with some of the business owners in that neighborhood, that the business is still
taking advantage of the City, and violations are still taking place. He said he feels we
need to put a stop to the business and feels that this is not a business for this
ATTACHMENT C
community. He also stated that this business is growing and flourishing, and it is time to
have it relocated. He said he agrees that it does offer jobs and helps the economy, but
he feels the business will not try to fix anything and will continue to make violations. He
also questioned City Attorney Murphy if it was feasible to change the deadline to 2010,
and asked about the ramifications if the Commission proposes that time frame.
City Attorney Murphy stated that the Planning Commission can recommend anything
that they want to the Council, and if the Commission feels one year is proper then the
Commission can make that recommendation. He also stated it will be much easier for
the Council to abate this non-conforming use to look at that three year period and to say
that three year period allows enough time for actual write off of the investment made for
this company, as it shows that the city understands the need to wind the business down
in this location and then to move it out. He also states the three year period based on
their research and staff's research, and it is much more defensible if ultimately the
business owner wants to try to challenge the city. He also stated we looked into what is
the best legally and most fair way to abate the non-conforming use and what is the best
position for the City to be in when the drop dead date does come. He also stated that is
why we advised the City on the three year date period and not the one year period that
is in the interest of the Commission. He also said, the Planning Commission can make
the recommendation to the Council, if they think it is appropriate.
Commissioner Ruiz questioned Vice-Chairman Alarcon how he felt about this.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that regardless of one year or three years he feels the
business will fight the City and would still like to recommend it to be one year. He also
stated that we are working to make the City a nice community and that this business
does not fit into this community anymore.
Commissioner Ruiz stated he agrees with Vice-Chairman Alarcon and states we should
like to make an amendment to make it 2010 and see what happens.
Commissioner Eng asked staff what is the designated use for this area, the current
zoning classification, and questioned what type of tools the City has to effectively deal
with legal non-conforming uses. She also gave a description of how the County of Los
Angeles handles a legal-non conforming use and stated she thought is was an effective
tool
Community Development Director Saeki replied that the current general plan designation
is mixed use and the underlying zone designation is M-1 (Light Industrial). He said that
the City's code currently has an amortization section in it, but there is no due process or
specific language.
Commissioner Eng stated that she would like to make a recommendation during
"Matters of the Commissioners" recommending staff to have some sort of non-
conforming use guideline policy in place so we can deal with issues like this in the future.
Commissioner Hunter questioned staff to why the word legalized slaughter house is
used in the staff report.
Community Development Director Saeki questioned Commissioner Hunter on what
pages.
8 ATTACHMENT C
Commissioner Hunter stated that it is on different pages, and they keep using the word
legalized, like it is legal.
Community Development Director Saeki stated that right now it is a non-permitted use in
the City and requested City Attorney Murphy to give legal explanation.
City Attorney Murphy stated that it is a legal use but it is one that is not permitted by the
municipal code. He also stated that cities in setting up on how they want their city to
operate can allow certain things and disallow others, a legal non-conforming use means
its use is non-conforming to your code but is still something that is ok with the law in
general. He also stated that when they say it is a legal slaughter house, it is one that is
operating legally as a slaughter house within Los Angeles. County, but it is not in
compliance with Rosemead's City Code, and that is why.'it would be a legal slaughter
house, as opposed to one that is setup in someone's back yard and operating
totally illegally.
Commissioner Hunter asked staff what is the,legal recourse if we change this to one
year instead of three, and if there is a possibly of a lawsuit for a certain amount of
money.
Community Development Saeki stated that there was no specific amount mentioned,
and the overall consensus was that three years was more legally defensible and when
you have a one year amortization period then you become more open to litigation. He
also stated the likeliness of this business suing the City is pretty good.
Commissioner Hunter stated that three years is too long, and if we change it to one
year, the business may take the City to court and it will then take longer than three
years.
Community Development Director Saeki stated that if it the amortization was changed to
one year, and if the business takes the City to court and wins, we are done. He also
stated if the City loses then we have to start this process again and they could be
awarded their legal fees.. He also,stated that staff is working with the property owner to
help them find a new location andtone year is not enough time to get everything done
properly.
Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff if two years would be better.
Community Development Director Saeki stated one year is fine, two years would be
better, but three years is what is recommended.
Chairwoman Herrera questioned staff if the business will still have to comply with City
codes and ordinances whether it is one, two, or three years. She also asked how the
codes will be enforced.
Community Development Director Saeki stated yes, they will have to comply with codes,
and our Code Enforcement will enforce through litigation if needed.
Chairwoman Herrera opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing
to speak in favor of this item.
9 ATTACHMENT C
Ralph Herrera stated that this business has demonstrated it is not very willing to comply
with the ordinances, and if you give them three years they have no reason to comply.
He also stated that he can see a three year battle, and it is possible to give them one
year with a review not to exceed three years to build a case, in case you go to court.
Chairwoman Herrera questioned if there was anyone else in favor or anyone against this
item.
None
Chairwoman Herrera closed the Public Hearing
Commissioner Eng stated she agrees with everyone and= we are trying to keep
Rosemead up to standards. She also stated that shutting down. businesses is not what
we should be doing and stated that she would like to explore other options.
Commissioner Ruiz stated this business has been given every opportunity to comply and
we are not in the business to shut businesses down, but we are here for the community
and we should vote on something tonight.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that he would like to make a motion to accept the
ordinance that has been written by staff with the exception that the amortization period
be for one year, not three, ending in 2010 instead of 2012.
City Attorney Murphy stated that he would like clarify the motion which is section two of
the ordinance where it says Section 17.12.105, Sub-Section A. Amortization period,
should be read that, "After December 31, 2010, no person may cause, allow, or permit
the continued use." He asked if that is that correct.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that yes that is his motion.
Commissioner Hunter stated that she is concerned, and the business should be
given three years, but limits should be set within the first year stating that they must
comply with all the City ordinances and codes.
Community Development Director Saeki stated that it will be better for the Planning
Commission to, recommend a date certain.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to
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, and
to include amending the year from 2012 to 2010.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Alarcon, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz
No: None
Abstain: Commissioner Eng
Absent: None
10 ATTACHMENT C
5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRWOMAN & COMMISSIONERS
None
Vice-Chairman Alarcon asked staff about the status of the Fresh & Easy market.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated they are currently in Plan Check and moving forward.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon questioned staff if Howards was going to move into the Barr
Lumber property.
Community Development Director Saeki stated no, that the property is in escrow right
now.
Commissioner Eng recommended that staff find a tool or guidelines to effectively deal
with legal non-conforming uses.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER & STAFF
None
7. ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 21, 2009, at 7:00
p.m.
Meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Diana Herrera
Chairwoman
ATTEST:
Rachel Lockwood,
Commission Secretary
11 ATTACHMENT C
ORDINANCE NO. 886
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-
04, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE
DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR ANY DWELLING WITH A
DEVELOPED LIVING AREA EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING TWO
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (2,500) SQUARE FEET IN R-1
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL) ZONES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The following findings are adopted in support of the
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require any developer or property owner
seeking to construct a new single-family home or an addition to an existing
residence which will create a total living area of two thousand five hundred
(2,500) square feet or more in size to first obtain approval of a Design Review
entitlement application through the public hearing process; and
A. The City Council of the City of Rosemead wishes to promote the
City of Rosemead's interest in protecting and preserving the quality and
character of the residential, commercial, and industrial areas in the City, and the
quality of life through effective land use planning; and
B. The City currently has provisions in its Municipal Code that require
a Conditional Use Permit for any dwelling unit developed with a total living area
that exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet in the R-1 (Single-
Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones; and
C. The City has determined that the current Conditional Use Permit
review process is not the most appropriate discretionary review application for
ensuring that large home development is compatible with existing residential
neighborhoods; and
D. It is the purpose and intent of the Ordinance to provide an improved
Design Review requirement for larger homes that ensures that residential
architecture is consistent with and complementary to the surrounding
neighborhood through a public hearing process.
E. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public
convenience, health, safety, or general welfare of the City, and
1 ATTACHMENT D
Section 2. The City Council hereby makes a finding of adequacy with the
Negative Declaration and HEREBY ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, as the
environmental clearance for Municipal Code Amendment 09-04.
The City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has
reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period
prior to the approval of this project.
Section 3. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that
Municipal Code Amendment 09-04 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 4. The City Council FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that
Municipal Code Amendment 09-04 is consistent with the Rosemead General
Plan as follows:
A. Land Use: Municipal Code Amendment 09-04 consists of requiring
approval of a Design Review (DR) entitlement application for any dwelling unit
developed with a total living area equal to or exceeding two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet in R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Light
Multiple Residential) zones. Requiring Design Review for dwellings with two
thousand five hundred (2,500) or more square feet of living area will provide a
zoning regulation that ensures that residential architecture is consistent with and
complementary to the surrounding neighborhood to assure the neighborhood's
integrity and the character of the community.
B. Circulation: Potential impacts to traffic and transportation depend
on the extent of a proposed project and local conditions. Each new proposed
residential project will be required to provide efficient vehicular access to the site.
Furthermore, residential additions and new home development will be required to
satisfy the parking requirements outlined in the municipal code.
C. Housing: The proposed municipal code amendment will not induce
substantial new population growth nor displace existing housing units or people.
The municipal code amendment is not proposing a higher density than what is
already established in the City's General Plan. Furthermore, the municipal code
amendment will not alter the current allowable maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
in the R-1 or R-2 zones. Therefore, the amount of living area on a lot will
continue to be regulated by the existing standards. Lastly, adopting the Design
Review procedures will promote and ensure a thorough process to regulate
higher architectural quality when larger homes are proposed.
D. Resource Management: Any proposed development resulting from
2 ATTACHMENT D
this municipal code amendment would be located in a developed urban area, and
as such, will not result in any impact upon natural resources. Proposed
developments will be required to provide adequate landscaped areas in the
overall site plan.
E. Noise: The proposed development will not generate any permanent
impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. New development shall be
required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance.
F. Public Safety: Impacts to law or fire enforcement, parks, and public
facilities are area or community specific. The proposed municipal code
amendment would not impact police, fire, or school services, and there would be
no change in demand for or use of public parks. The entire City of Rosemead is
located in Flood Zone C (flood insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any
flood hazard designations.
Section 5. CODE AMENDMENT. Section 17.16.025 of Chapter 17.12 of
Title 17 (Uses permitted with Design Review) of the Rosemead Municipal Code
is hereby added to read as follows:
17.16.025 Uses permitted with Design Review.
Design Review approval subject to approval of a precise plan of design pursuant
to the procedures in Chapter 17.72 of this Title, shall be required for:
A. Any new dwelling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds two
thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of developed living area.
B. Any addition to a dwelling unit in which the total floor area with the addition
equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2.500) square feet of
developed living area.
Section 6. CODE AMENDMENT. Subsection A of Section 17.16.130 (Lot
Coverage) of the Rosemead Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. Floor-Area Ratio (FAR). Residential development shall not have a floor-
area ratio that exceeds thirty-five (35) percent, to be calculated pursuant
to Section 17.04.020. An additional five percent may be obtained through
use of the design incentive program outlined in Section 17.16.260. In
ee * ~12.030.
Section 7. CODE AMENDMENT. Section 17.20.025 of Chapter 17.29 of
Title 17 (Uses permitted with Design Review) of the Rosemead Municipal Code
is hereby added to read as follows:
ATTACHMENT D
17.20.025 Uses permitted with Design Review.
Design Review approval, subject to approval of a precise plan of design pursuant
to the procedures in Chapter 17.72 of this Title, shall be required for:
A. Any new dwelling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds two
thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of developed living area.
B. Any addition to a dwelling unit in which the total floor area with the addition
equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of
developed living area.
Section 8. CODE AMENDMENT. Subsection A of Section 17.20.130 (Lot
Coverage) of the Rosemead Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
A. Floor-Area Ratio (FAR). Residential development shall not have a floor-
area ratio that exceeds thirty-five (35) percent, to be calculated pursuant
to Section 17.04.020. An additional five percent may be obtained through
use of the design incentive program outlined in Section 17.16.260, to be
calculated pursuant to Section 17.04.020. in additi^^ any esidential
dwelling that ° eeds thFee the sand (3,000) s e feet of living aFea
Section 9. CODE AMENDMENT. Section 17.72.040 A (Application -
Content and fee) of the Rosemead Municipal Code is hereby amended as
follows:
A. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the erection, alteration,
addition to or enlargement of, or the moving or relocation of, any building
or structure, in the D Zone, or any building or structure requiring a precise
plan of design, an application and plans shall be submitted t t six sph; o
plans to the Planning Department. Such application and plans shall be on
a form prescribed by the Planning Commission. A fee, as established by
Council resolution, shall be paid upon the filing of such application.
Section 10. CODE AMENDMENT. Section 17.72.060 (Approval
Procedure) of the Rosemead Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
Application for approval of a precise plan of design shall be made with the
Director of.Planning, subject to the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.124,
except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter. If the Director
determines that the plans conform to the provisions of this chapter, and
the policies adopted by the Planning Commission hereunder, the Director
shall endorse his or her approval thereon in writing to the Planning
Commission for their concurrence. When the plans for an approval do not
ATTACHMENT D
arbitrarily alter the appearance of the property, the only approval required
shall be that of the Director of Planning.
Section 11. CODE AMENDMENT. Section 17.72.070 (Appeals) of the
Rosemead Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
The applicant or any person aggrieved by the decision of the Planning
Commission may file an appeal to the City Council on any ruling by the
Planning Commission by filing a written request on forms provided by the
Planning Department. The appeal shall be filed within ten f+#eea (1045)
days after such hearing, setting forth alleged inconsistency or
nonconformity with procedures or criteria set forth in or pursuant to this
code. The filing shall suspend any building permit until final action.
The City Council shall hold a hearing on the appeal and shall render its
decision thereon within forty (40) days after the filing thereof. The City
Council may approve, disapprove or modify the decision of the Planning
Commission, and its decision shall be final.
If significant new evidence is presented with the appeal which may include
substantial changes to the original proposal, the Council may refer the
matter back to the Planning Commission, in which case the Planning
Commission's decision shall be final.
Section 12. CODE AMENDMENT. Subsection 26 of Section 17.112.030
(Uses permitted in specific zones) of the Rosemead Municipal Code is hereby
deleted in its entirety.
Section 13. The City Council hereby adopts the amendment to the
"Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines" attached hereto as Exhibit'A'.
Section 14. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY DECLARES that
it would have passed and adopted .Ordinance No. 886 and each and all
provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions
may be declared to be invalid.
Section 15. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect thirty
(30) days after its,adoption.
Section 16. ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this ordinance and shall publish a summary of this ordinance and post a certified
copy of the full ordinance in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to
the adoption and within 15 days after adoption of the ordinance, the City Clerk
s ATTACHMENT D
shall publish a summary of the ordinance with the names of the council members
voting for and against the ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days
after the date of its adoption.
Section 17. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this day of 2009.
MARGARET CLARK, Mayor
ATTEST:
GLORIA MOLLEDA, City Clerk
Joseph M. Montes, City Attorney
s ATTACHMENT D
EXHIBIT A
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
y
C (6 r
m r_
to o a~ ~ 0r > 30
N O U) 0) Y U a> O O O
N O Q p N ~ 8 2 N O~ .
.L-. C N U 'p 00 N
C 0) N t0 m N u- i a) '0
.27-cmm >cm-oo>
o C: C'in- L.~L O O 30 0 o
T U C p = 2-
0 _ V a (6 9 f6 (6 O > (6
3.
N C N C C 'C N 'C In -p .
C m f6L N co O Cc)>
j a) -p O O w Q M O N
to U N U O m N .U O LL of
d O N t= L E en 0
70 L O s.. -0 Q 7 N L - FC: m (L) C m w M =0 3~
O <0 m E 'X E 4> 0
Z W Ct.'0 rn N E E m
to N C C f6 (t)
-0 -2
_ 0 7 ` toil (O X CD L C (U
2 C E m L -C ~ y X
3 0-.2 N O 0l C M C N
O 'O pl
_O 0 N N O N- > m
o (v Fn m
x W -0
O W Ntin U W (D ~Z- 0)
0 O U C~ m N l6 ~ E E U l6
O 0_ n O) .0 N C O C Q- (6 -
0) N N
p f6 f6 Vl Vl a 0 F 0 O
3
N .en -5 -0
n/ N '6 7 r m C C p p >
> N O p O p 0 V7 ~O '0 m N m N
O C U U i -0 O w F. 'O 3 i.
N N c (L) Q
C _2
N cn N O .Q N U) Q U (K ~ y N LL to
m o =3 C: w tpn U)O ax) 2
E O r N m o
r N> U "o w z_ V o N C) I
to >1-0 0 0_ N W U m w a m
c 3 a) m N 0 c ~❑z aNi~ m E.m
o(o any U) rnmm0~-
(u U) m 2 O Q„ t U S1 m(D J C/) L O O- X U Q
n U m a) C N v -p Q W O U "O O
-
mC"UO-.t.-'O C ~0 Z0 O O C to > E E0 Q)
0 O 0 0 0_ m to Z 0 W U a) C (6 L
O a O
U N N N -00 w QwLL to w- U 0 N-0
mm~ o 0) M my J2W~ ~Q,c - 0
~ E m 0 0 m 0> C p Q U~ F to ~0 o'
0 CL (D
O L U O ,F E N O U U) Q W en
0 LL N rn w
O (C6 L O O a) W ZO cn 0) a) 2
m® E O 0{ O t6
Y o +
L -Fu a) 3;
a) :3 M m
H 0 N 0 '0 0 2 ca U)
1- H Q-' C to
m N
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
City of Rosemead
Planning Division
8838 E. Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, California 91770
PROJECT TITLE: Municipal Code Amendment No. 09-04 (MCA 09-04)
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Rosemead
PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Paul Garry
ADDRESS: City of Rosemead - Planning Division, 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770
TELEPHONE: (626) 569-2147
PROJECT LOCATION: City of Rosemead (citywide)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Rosemead is proposing to amend various sections of the Rosemead Zoning
Ordinance require a Design Review (DR) entitlement application for any dwelling unit developed
with a total living area equal to or exceeding two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet in
R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones. Currently a
Conditional Use Permit is required for such dwellings that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet.
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: Paul Garry Determination Approved:
Title: Senior Planner 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
ATTACHMENT E
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
PLANNING DIVISION
8838 E. VALLEY BLVD.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Project title:
Lead agency name and address:
Contact person and phone number:
Project location:
Project sponsor's name and address:
General plan designation:
Zoning:
Municipal Code Amendment 09-04
9.
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
Paul Garry, Senior Planner
(626) 569-2147
City-Wide
City of Rosemead
County of Los Angeles
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
All land use designations
All zoning districts
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 proposing to amend the Rosemead Municipal Code to require
Design Review Approval for new single-family dwelling units that equal or exceed 2,500
square feet of living area in the R-1 and R-2 Zones instead of requiring approval of a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The amendment would also clarify the noticing and
review procedures for Design Review applications.
Surrounding land uses and setting. (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
The City 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. The
R-1 and R-2 Zones are distributed throughout the City of Rosemead.
ATTACHMENT E
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL 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 & Hazardous
Materials
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Public Services
❑
Utilities/Services
Systems
❑ Agriculture
Resources
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Hydrology/Water
Quality
❑ Noise
❑ Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
❑
Air Quality
❑
Geology/Soils
❑
Land Use/Planning
❑
Population/Housing
❑
Transportation/Traffic
2 ATTACHMENT E
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I 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 measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL 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 EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revision or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further
is required.
) )1)710
Signature Date
Paul baifl
Printed Name For
ATTACHMENT E
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 project-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 (c) (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.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used
or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. 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.
4 ATTACHMENT E
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b{ h4`T#>>,xtisCFh,1-ivY",.;s.-n6~~4~z„~•;'4~,du{ti. ...~x++~ LesstThan "lv~~ e~'yTb x'Xn y:,
Poten4allyxXSignificant LessTh~an ! ~ ~i
Au yjta"t~~~, raSignficant With
SSignificanti Nod
Environmental ls5 ues~v,~~~';~~~!,5z, ~x,~lmpact+• ~MrtigaUOn ~ ~s~lmpact~ ,~lmpact~
.u ~a § s x* 1ti. f3+ o-ft , `C x s~xy4+4 We j'>`~ ~mC fA r. G) Pu 3w +c is # r,
1 xaAesthetlcs T,~' p" k~ Ttv~x '~Cf"X w'`i trk~L~ rtY ~ 3~ a "~Y a, a 3G s,~~'~"$' lsx`t_
~ y ct~n ~~rewx k-~~r,°X~lx~~ar. r 'Y,~r~.~x'rt'~'+ix ~fi"t~ be ad,plst +a nV.~~~t¢~'~ ~~av~ §v as xm'Sr+xMd
y^+pis~ t ~k,k a 4H- hraF 7r ~`"`s ~ ~ 1y,r xer A'] 11 .N =b x i "
l~~4WOU1d1112prOJECt.r"~.`~~7,..~dt.,•~`.`~k1ct ,HV~§ash'',1",~1~.~':Boa'~.u~c`£~'~.sr,:~.,.~xS.~~:~-`r~`.,'S7w~'.`F`_o'~~'!t+?..r,•vr'-k+~'~'~
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?
2`tAgiicultureResources eyr r'z K X25„d~y~1+ N;'y~f13 xA luA51 " yF r i, ~ '
GlF SY`yi t!. 1 _ [j .a,3.C lW l~sY;,, F4 y}.7 1..Y....,§~,L~Ak f 2 P 1r~.t]4 yu ~'a'. C~J YY •N I1
''~aan determmrng~whether impacts too agricultural resources are srgmficantenvrro~nmen~al effeu is lead3
,K agencre~s may refento the Cal6orma Agncr~ltu~,ral Land Evaluation and Srte As' ~e's~ment Model;,t N~~ q
~r~,; (1997) prepared by thetCa6fomra Department of Conservation"as an optional model tO+usettrn ~'rg
,,,L i .~t Y @ a C ~w r~a+3 ri ryld }L.+ ~ x y~~ Pif 1t ~"Fr WM -s~Y 9 S ia~li~i
a • assessrhg rmpacts,dn,agnculfure and farmland ,,r ~ w,7~P ~i~`e~. F r~ i~,+,k«~ ,r;
c r5! ! Y Y} x ~ a ' e t`~uw "~xr a + `4 ~,t5 ~ m cy ,,v~ ~ e1 ,,-~i^ ±t~S xrt~'.:F.+a n
,Ya,y-&~W,~old f112 prOJBCf,uk + „31'u9. !°'ss+1o , 3fi'.tr'`t,4>~+~~u"+.~~ tsl3"'. f~xf?, .~,vi'1, rn ~,~P yxi! b2~~'r{,t.~ >h, ~ c.l~Iv ~.dl,
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?
3a Alr QUdhf~.~I 3q s,rr riivs.yy,::,vi yY4" A yQ Aa. 3k~3 .rt-1t; `~J d. :-,3 t axx 71'~ r~J std
" Where avarlab e ttie srgnnc~ance cnzena established by the applicable air quu tyo g'-ng a pollution'control drstnc maybe rel ed upon to make she fo lowing determrnat on ~0 ;~p f
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?
ATTACHMENT E
~ 4.cf~a 5~,si r `r*~ 'l~~j >U' w z s bs u"S. F }+3 w *m ~ r- .h ° - $ r a!1'ki, "u'd' ci -'~+5~a
r
,.w~; fix, ''1 Mite anon Im act K,,r Im act
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?
47BiologicalzResources i z v< t' b r
xM Vl!ouldthe' roe
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 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? _
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
❑
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, El E] regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
r n 1 t 7 1w~fN Sy? + kx~;r~ a" d t ae° n. w k`
r x Y sf'. x ~ l 1K~ 1r > rrv!N ~rP t~ ds xe v ut'a'...~ ~sv~`i'~ s PAL e! ~ ~ .{s S y~~ ~ Te,
xo"cv~VOGtd
ATTACHMENT E
Y ~ Y i' ~ try l r9~~ ~ c h S 3 $ f`"n"} 9 ? Y' 'Il i a'
~~~~Fv~~,t}tf~leSS ~fian
°i 3~ir r+c"e'^.~,e
~w aS} r
^
"k
~~3'
L
r%~
~~2
~
~'N'
y
~
°
~
`{1 iMl
4 S
*
ftl
~
f
r
~
~
~
,
4
-
E ~
3
Y R
~
'"+r_ 4*
3
v }
~~n ~}tr ;text-~N~t,~.,~E~ *~gr:,N' f <"r. }~S ~SrFryPotentially Sigmficant.yaLessx~Than t r.: ~r
`
~
Mitigat~on yi~lmpact
I
~Impac[
~
~ronmentalissues~>r#
x"~{
F'
.
~
~5;
3En
mpact-
t
,
,
,,N
_
A
v
,
~
,Y.
,
.
.
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?
~ as a N' e „"dy ~ a ~ t` ~ f5 gr h vp Y f 2
B`r~GeologY.andSoils~~~~ ~ G,r r,~ ~,~k r~ u,tr ~ru2$~~c ~,hr~r> s
1
M J !(IUq
2 "w+4SRh}d Y 'C' at 4 w i
§
.
~
s k
~.,I
~ t{^
4
r
p ~
Y
d A 70~ li T ~tt t yy~~ k 1
pD I - 4
~
; ~5 , z .
t`` r Would the proyect o,:.p ~ v R a ~ s~ ,wr~~{ . ~ ~ ~
~
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?
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?
ATTACHMENT E
//'P'"~Gb~~ d!. s~"C'A r~ w s r 3, ~~x ' i +'rN >°'S"~~ . •*'1 ~ {l c yb25#'
RC ~'~h ~ t1y 4e@ nn ^s ~ ~r< 7~Fr ~ ~~v~e.~Y'gkn{1 sLw~x r i! 5 r LESS Than m ~ ~s f'''~oy~1-3 y i1n >Ti.
E ~x ~.+^"r^ 1 ~ n s3 F s ~ 3 s, • , ,y,„ ~,~y „~3+r,~~S, t Potentially Significant LessuThan,r
j~~ '~~~~,~.if~`~;,~,~f`~ s,~~ ~:,~~~{^r~-~~ ~'~~Ns"~`u~t'~.~v~Sigmfic"a~nt~~~,ep,•~.With~ '"Significaritc~,~'-.No t,S
-'sf„ pk4'~'r,r`sEnyironmentatJssues;.",~;~,,}yry~~~;~,.•• Impact~M+~~~Mtt~gation~ ~Im act~£r!Im act„_
lsHazards and Hazardous Matenals = t~+ r y
f#,a•*~ a, y„~w'n +~S ~~.w j xavtV ir~s~vsi~ -vJ~}' ~l'Yj~v .i-~,+'.+4F i.~t~re't~'i a.J's ~~'":'~t`r H'C f~•y?~i
Would-the ro ect , r<s~ r > t'.p'h"'est^>t~..~us t -i"^ y - .f•w +w i
P 1~.._..:_. o-,. n..> ~•.y-w'iL.~...s....t4.~.._•an.,.;Z.,..,. .1.,. ._,-.r~_~. 3{_.:~li~,T;.. 4s yi..,.`J._<..
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
w10
aste 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 the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑
emergency evacuation plan?
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?
ATTACHMENT E
f'S-°P~YI ? x$ r ~ T y ,k M xi ~~F "W fa i* & tom, x ' ' k ? k ~ f .t F .
s~ ,r e ,3f sM :4,A n ~ a,~,,, »n; * §r Less .Than > r y nYn , .
~azaNrc,~ e ~,w~ ,+~3"'~,taf~",ur ~ ¢ x~tf~~sx~.~ ~~~;ar~Potentiaully.~Sigmfcant ,LessThan ~ {Y ;art,
sM1,~~Environmentallssues „7~}~~g>~,~.~t5~.,~„Impact~.~;~M~Lg'aGOn` ,Impact~`~_Impact,:
18 hHydrology"and Water Quality 's, s¢` pYy=~a, Ky~ zv^.3 s -
~,ai.. ¢ t N::31~a1 n.a xsy~- SM1'G ' 2"~ , e
J~4 T~xv, 8 r7" h'ro3.kYxe ~:r C'o-i„."1°
a 10!µ1p`;",s u
d the ro ect _
~4k.:]
NMI
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?
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 mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑
9",. Land Use and Planning , , Yom} 7 w t + z 4y
l:b" a w s, f r:µ 5 ~ s`~ of YVa k.~'P'a ~~PP 'f'Y^<,u.'1. ps a r ~,,if~ t x u'f"' SP Fib ey sa y...
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑
ATTACHMENT E
, {q. ~ 5 n4 ~ ' a Div(` rrT ..r k 3 5 Yx r R7 m C t3 R ' 3 z ~ P.
~N7 ~{~t+b ~~2 "3.1.,1~~~SNL ~`F- "u'..~f i a~~ ~uP'k''~?ty~ eY 'T"°~.. ,S~~LessaThan117 mr~t'~a"F~i'+FN ydv" rf".:
=,;"~t3Environmental,issues Yraa-,pi.:p5,t' rlmpact~MRigaUonImpact~,~impact,~.
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?
+'F Tv >I! 'a. co-r.au 7'a^5 r'ti^s f TY't 4e" yA.r" T c-? ,F~, { `4 x,~ .are A CNx
~10`<MineraIResources a }5: v zsa4t'ri,3,"a xti dr 'a 33~ wy s.
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?
1 ° sa. ~ ~ Y 4 C i"fie ks SwIS ? .y ~ ' x-.25 t 't f~ ~ ~d~
11'}Nose i c .+ko 3' a f,e.~s mgt - r+v u e fi n ~ ~ ,T ~#L~:
! G 35lY4"~ a A t i c trJ Sr3"s'.ln>, 1E
Would the, proyect result m_ t>rr~.y, ,w ~i a' ,si£ ~
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?
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?
,a a 'a ~a rYr r-n"rr }-.t fy ~Pmr <v si"~1 i~- n ~ar7~r y sr_ -r4 k `w`
2r ,~{iy'"~r r u'~ Z r'+F VF - w r,.+1r 45t r y? x ,C~\'yJ'c S ~ a,~ _ ¢ ffNu ~ , n p ~ ..f, £..t'k`
10 ATTACHMENT E
f^~ 'M e + Y.ta j s 1 ° )R :x J`h ti x'.A' H w m ~ dro - , w.
: f, j "a~ ~ ` ~'~4'r~` ~J'~~vt~~i Y^~~, Potentially FSlgrilficant ~ ess Than " rti
~.,__,,„~.,.~~g~u, =Envv~onmental.Issuesf~:,ff,r~Tks~yF,'~:,ilmpactE~~tMltlga4on ""Im act `~„Impact
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?
;Mr wP-~w rat -v...tl h~ Tse~ t.. r "hYbFV ;s3 t y 3''x R x x f-ey P Y.
ea3:
„ublic Services , : 3 sail 3 ,fix k 3 ba a ° s w p .
, q' ici sry .tc~ s7 , a j 4x
Would the protect resu ltxin substantial adverse physical mpa cts assodated with the proves ft, t .
f new or physFCally altered governmenta4TacJh es ned kfo'rhew,or piiyslcally'altered-governmental
faald~es ahe construction of which }co'uld cause slgn~scant~environmental, mpacts m orde 5 to v $R
+ maintain acceptablelserwce ratios ~esponse~times;orother performance obJectives for any ofthe ~
w i v n yn~~ :QzM.~ r tz .as t ~f ri+'~Yr k•ib ~sF yll ~,~*I~a n, T%{~`"~`~p ` t t `{lA + "i'
+ public services a~a r'•. I.~, m b y C, q,t~ `:,r~.H„s"*,,w°~xa,l~hh*. r~}t ' i r" R s a s ,
a.~~... ,.f.., .r..,.,„w, a v...,~,r~.r .:,,.ti •„z
a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 19
b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑
---d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
4n k v n n.r.. :k,:
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 might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
/Tffic¢'~ Rl k''~~i -~.,,EyZ n~ z t~ a, y, °t ''~tWd>r >x ~ §§t.a a}r+ t{~ R G r
15'6,TransPortation i•a
W r r,' a r•rxFK n~ Y s I
'a..a~~ StIE plOJ2Cf~a, lw!t!tk;, Tiyt'7k~t~~,-t
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?
11 ATTACHMENT E
A' IN 1 e t~ d Sa't (r dr " 59 yt"u .^1 r e r C~:°, '4 pri.v{ i rS. w a A n3?Pl5 °J" h~i rW't ffi 4~
a 'l n N~ ~ °d ~M.t f Ash eru9 ( xs k ! ! u° u L r
;:e, rx
Izt+4 {j~v `x`#`tfiv,rPotentiallyaSignifi_cantLess,Thantyz s
~.~y=5`~ o „~~'~ti t~x~`'+~sf ?a'~`~'a'^xSs ~ ; ~~hrA~'~ d@'~~,I~Significant„~ s Wrth4 Significan~~ u {xN0 vl j
~jps ~ w,` ~t~,.;Environmental Issues y°,!~..;f, ,t4 _,,n.,<Impact k~~~~Mitlga>bon ,Impact , ,is Impact
c) Result in a change in sir traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a ❑ ❑ ❑
change in location that results in 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)?
.rte -r x iw e x• S+ "t.zu - 4k'n~. r ak n,.,..s .,p T k ~1a' y) ✓ F
M6*'Ut~lities'and
y -,a y,x n rx ~ r*~~ 6 3
"Si F 4 f \ 1 S .kv1 ~n N y, rf $ ~'4 i ic-+~'~tkir~ 8'rR "✓i S .1v .Ffiplx R ~+'v5 r i'.
r Would the pra/ect,"t..,:,..';..
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?
- - - -
e) 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?
O~x
17Mandatory Fmdmgs of SigmFcancest
Yv.
12 ATTACHMENT E
A,
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 range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
❑ ❑
11 0
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?
13 ATTACHMENT E
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. AESTHETICS
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to aesthetics as a result of this project.
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to agricutural resources as a result of this
project.
3. AIR QUALITY
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to air quality as a result of this project.
4: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The proposed. Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
14 ATTACHMENT E
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to biological resources as a result of this
project.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to cultural resources as a result of this
project.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to geology and soils as a result of this
project.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will'change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to hazards and hazardous materials as a
result of this project.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
15 ATTACHMENT E
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to hydrology and water quality as a result of
this project.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to land use and planning as a result of this
project.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to mineral resources as a result of this
project.
11. NOISE
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no noise impacts as a result of this project.
16 ATTACHMENT E
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to population and housing as a result of this
project.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to public services as a result of this project.
14. RECREATION
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to recreation as a result of this project.
15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
17 ATTACHMENT E
Therefore, there will be no impacts to transportation/traffic as a result of this
project.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there will be no impacts to utilities and service systems as a result of
this project.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment will change the discretionary review
procedures for the construction of, or additions to, single-family residential units
in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zones
that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet from a Conditional Use Permit procedure
to a Design Review procedure. The Amendment will not affect the number or
location of properties that will be subject to a discretionary review or change the
type of developments that will be subject to a discretionary review. The
amendment merely changes the type of discretionary review that is required.
Therefore, there are no mandatory findings of significance that need to be made.
18 ATTACHMENT E
References
1. City of Rosemead General Plan, October 14, 2008
2. City of Rosemead Municipal Code
19 ATTACHMENT E