CC - Item 7A - Municipal Code Amendment 09-03 - Relating to the Amortization of Nonconforming Poultry Slaughter BusinessesROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 26, 2010
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-03, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12
OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING
POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES
SUMMARY
The City Council has directed actions towards the elimination of poultry slaughter
business operations within the City. Accordingly, staff and the City Attorney drafted an
Ordinance to amortize poultry slaughter businesses in the City within three (3) years
from the effective date of this Ordinance. On December 7, 2009, the Planning
Commission considered the draft Ordinance and recommended a change in the
amortization period from the initial recommendation of three (3) years to less than one
(1) year. (The Planning Commission recommendation would require that all poultry
businesses cease operations in the City by December 31, 2010.)
At this point, the City Council has optional alternative amortization periods to choose
from. They include but are not limited to:
1. Staff recommendation of three (3) years.
2. Planning Commission recommendation of less than one (1) year (December
31, 2010).
3. Such other amortization period as the Council deems appropriate based upon
legal advice and the public hearing.
As an addition to any amortization period contained within the ordinance, staff and the
City Attorney have prepared a provision that could be inserted into the Ordinance at the
Council's discretion, which would create an application and hearing procedure for any
affected business that believes it cannot meet the amortization period. The provision is
set forth in the body of this staff report.
Attached hereto as Attachment B is the draft Ordinance, which is the draft that was
presented to the Planning Commission (three (3) year amortization period). Should the
Council wish to modify the amortization period, or add any provision concerning an
ITEM NO.. k,
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA:
City Council Meeting
January 26, 2010
Paqe 2 of 4
application for extension of the amortization period, those changes would need to be
incorporated into any motion to introduce the Ordinance for first reading.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council determine whether to adopt an ordinance and
any modifications thereto; and, if so, approve the negative declaration and introduce
Ordinance No. 883 for first reading amending Chapter 17.12 of Title 17 of the City of
Rosemead Municipal Code relating to the amortization of nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses.
ANALYSIS
Background information regarding this matter is included in the attached staff report
presented to the Planning Commission on December 7, 2009. Ordinance No. 883
proposes to amortize all poultry slaughter businesses out of the City of Rosemead
within a given time period. That period of time should be one that allows sufficient time
for the business owner to find a new location for its business, should it wish to open at a
new location, as well as to recoup some of the cost of its investment in those portions of
the business that would not carry over to a new location. It was recommended to the
Planning Commission by staff that a three (3) year amortization period would be
appropriate. However, the Planning Commission recommended that the amortization
period end on December 31, 2010.
Recognizing that there may be aspects of poultry slaughtering that are not apparent to
non-owners of such a business, the Council could opt to include a procedure whereby
any affected business owner could seek an extension of the amortization based upon
demonstrated hardship. A draft of such a provision that could be inserted into the draft
ordinance is set forth below:
"C. Extension application. The owner of a legal nonconforming poultry
slaughtering business or the owner of the property upon which such use exists, may
file an application with the Community Development Director for an extension of the
amortization period in accordance with the following procedures:
1. The application must be filed at least 180 days prior to the expiration of
the amortization period established in subsection A. The filing fee for the
application will be the same as that for a variance as established by the
City Council.
2. The application must state the additional length of time requested for the
amortization and the grounds for requesting such an extension of time
including but not necessarily limited to information relevant to the criteria
set forth in subsection D.
3. Within 30 calendar days following the receipt of a complete application,
the Community Development Director shall set the matter for a hearing.
City Council Meeting
January 26, 2010
Page 3 of 4
D. Decision on extension application. The City Council will hold a public hearing
at which time all evidence and testimony regarding the request for an extension of
the amortization period will be considered. The burden will be on the applicant to
establish that the extension should be granted. Such hearing may be continued by
the City Council as needed to allow for introduction of relevant evidence or to allow
time for additional relevant information to be compiled at the Council's request. In
rendering a decision, the City Council should consider the following factors (note: to
the extent that any applicant refuses to provide any information listed below, the City
Council may consider any evidence/documentation provided as a substitute,
although the Council retains the discretion as to how much weight to give to such
substitute evidence) :
1. The poultry slaughtering business owner's or property owner's financial
investment in the business, in particular the amount of investment prior to
notice of the City's intent to amortize existing legal nonconforming poultry
slaughtering businesses, which for the purposes of this chapter was
October 26, 2009.
2. The present actual and depreciated value of business improvements.
3. The applicable Internal Revenue Service depreciation schedules.
4. The remaining useful life of the business improvements.
5. The cost of relocating the business.
6. The ability of the business owner or property owner to change the use to a
conforming use.
7. The good faith efforts made to recoup the investment and to relocate the
use.
8. The effects of the poultry slaughtering business on the health, safety and
welfare of surrounding businesses and uses if the business were to be
permitted to extend the amortization period.
E. The decision shall be in the form of a written resolution and must include
findings in support of the decision to grant or deny any extension of the amortization
period.
F. The decision of the City Council will be final and subject to judicial review
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.8."
As described above, were the Council to include an extension provision, a hearing on
the extension application would be heard by the City Council at a public hearing where
the Council would decide if an extension is warranted and if so, how long the extension
period would be.
Poultry slaughtering in the City of Rosemead has a history of creating a public nuisance
and adversely impacting surrounding residential areas and water quality. The City has
received numerous complaints over many years about the odor related to poultry
City Council Meeting
January 26, 2010
Page 4 of 4
slaughter as a land use. The City and other public agencies have observed that it has
proved difficult for chickens to be caged in a clean and secure manner and this has
resulted in chickens getting loose in the City and non-permitted industrial waste being
discharged into public storm drains from washing operations associated with chicken
cages.
The M-1 Zone also largely consists of shallow lots in close proximity to R-1 (Single
Family Residential) zones. As a result, poultry slaughter as a land use would likely
continue to expose residents in nearby R-1 zones to noxious odors and other negative
impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared recommending the adoption of a Negative Declaration in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The Initial
Study is an environmental analysis of the proposed code amendment to determine
whether the proposed land use will have potentially significant effects on the
environment. This study has found that there are no potentially significant
environmental impacts that could occur with the adoption of the proposed code
amendment.
It should be noted that the Initial Study considered an amortization period of three (3)
years. If the City Council selects an alternative amortization period, it is not likely that
results of the initial study would change and therefore approving the Negative
Declaration would still be appropriate.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the required public posting requirements of the
regular agenda notification process, and through the required noticing and postings
pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Submitted by
'dam 2cJ~,e '
Stan Wong
Community Development Director
Attachment A - December 7, 2009 Planning Commission Staff Report and draft minutes
Attachment B - Ordinance No. 883
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 09-03, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12
OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING
POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES
SUMMARY
The City of Rosemead is proposing to amend Chapter 17.12 of the Rosemead
Municipal Code relating to the amortization of nonconforming poultry slaughter
businesses in the City (Ordinance No. 883 - Exhibit A). This item was presented to the
Planning Commission initially on November 16, 2009. At that meeting, staff requested
that the Planning Commission continue the item to December 7, 2009 to allow for
further analysis of the issue.
The proposed ordinance requires that all poultry slaughter businesses within the City of
Rosemead, cease operating as of December 31, 2012.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 09-23 (Exhibit
B), 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.
BACKGROUND
Currently, there is one poultry slaughter business in the City of Rosemead (CAL Poultry,
located at 8932 Garvey Avenue). CAL Poultry has been operating a poultry slaughter
business with retail sales in Rosemead for over 18 years. The following is a chronology
of events related to this business:
January 1991 - CAL Poultry (8932 Garvey Avenue) was issued a Certificate of
Occupancy (in January 1991, poultry slaughtering was a permitted use in the M-1
light manufacturing and industrial zone).
ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission Meeting
December 7, 2009
Page 2 of 4
May 1991 - The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 683 removing poultry
slaughter and rabbit raising as a permitted use in the M-1 zone.
August 1997 - An Impact Agreement was executed by the City and Quan Phu
(owner of CAL Poultry) for the "City's additional costs for traffic and parking
enforcement generated by the proposed development project and retail business
(8942 Garvey Avenue)...". The business owner paid the City $18,000
($500/month for 3 years).
December 1997 - A plan check application was submitted for 3,168 square foot
retail sales market directly adjacent to CAL Poultry (8942 Garvey Avenue).
February 1999 - The City authorized a 2,195 square foot outdoor storage area to
be enclosed at 8932 Garvey Avenue. It was anticipated that this improvement
would allow for deliveries of chicken cages to be placed directly into this
enclosed area which should have improve the outdoor odor and storage issues.
August 2003 - The business owner was cited by the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works Environmental Division for inappropriate waste
water discharge and not maintaining the parking lot.
June/July 2003 - The retail sales market was issued a final approval from the
Planning and Building and Safety Divisions and issued a Certificate of
Occupancy (8942 Garvey Avenue).
April 2006 - The business owner was cited by the City of Rosemead for several
code violations including illegal outdoor storage, no business license or business
occupancy permit for 8942 Garvey, unpermitted signage, illegal opening between
8932 and 8942 Garvey Avenue, and overall lack of property maintenance.
May 2006 - The business owner was given verbal direction by the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works Environmental Division to clean catch basin
at the northeast corner of the parking lot. According to the inspector the catch
basin "smelled and had some water, trash, and debris".
October 2006 - The business owner was issued a Stop Work notice from the
Building Division for the non-permitted interior improvements and requested
structural plans to remedy the illegal opening of the block wall between 8932 and
8942 Garvey Avenue.
November 2006 - A Notice of Non Compliance was issued to CAL Poultry by the
California Regional Water Control Board requiring that the business owner apply
ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission Meeting
December 7, 2009
Page 3 of 4
for a "General Permit". This type of permit is required of any poultry slaughtering
business.
November 2006 - Several complaints were received by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District from local residents. An inspector was dispatched
to CAL Poultry as well as to the complainants homes in Rosemead. The
inspector provided the complainants with contact information if the odor persisted
(1-800-CUT-SMOG) and suggested that they file complaints using that number.
The inspector also visited CAL Poultry and noted that the odor was evident in the
parking lot of the facility.
April 2008 - The business owner was given a Notice of Violation by the California
Regional Water Control Board for washing down chicken waste into the storm
drain. The owner was required to submit a report detailing any corrective actions
taken as a result of the storm water violation by May 23, 2008. Any follow up by
the Water Quality Board was not disclosed to staff.
August 2008 - The business owner was cited by the Los Angeles County Public
Health Department for not maintaining the exterior premises of the building
including objectionable odors from animal waste, operating without the required
public health permit, and was required to appear before the Department of Food
and Milk for the violations. Any fines and/or penalties given to CAL Poultry by
the Food and Milk Board were not disclosed to staff.
November 2008 - In an attempt to comply with City regulations, the business
owner submitted an application for a municipal code amendment that would have
legalized his business and allowed him to expand the use to address odor
issues. This amendment would have also legalized poultry slaughtering in the M-
1 zone. This application was denied by the City Council in January 2009.
August 2009 - The business owner was verbally cited by City staff for the
installation of signage without a permit.
The City has also received several complaints from residents located to the north of
CAL Poultry over the last few years. The complaints included excessive odor, lack of
site maintenance, and questionable business operational practices (i.e., urination in
public by CAL Poultry employees).
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.
ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission Meeting
December 7, 2009
Page 4 of 4
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared recommending the adoption of a Negative Declaration in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (the Initial
Study and Negative Declaration are attached to this report as Exhibit C). The Initial
Study is an environmental analysis of the proposed code amendment to determine
whether the proposed land use will have potentially significant effects on the
environment. This study has found that there are no potentially significant
environmental impacts that could occur with the adoption of the proposed code
amendment.
A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was distributed for a 20-day public
review and comment period between October 26, 2009 and November 16, 2009. If the
Commission is inclined to recommend approval this project, the Commission must make
a finding of adequacy with the environmental assessment and recommend that the City
Council adopt the Negative Declaration.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the required public posting requirements of the
regular agenda notification process, and through the required noticing and postings
pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Su mi
t:
Bria eki
Community Development Director
Exhibits:
pie. 883
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-23
C. Initial Study & Negative Declaration
ATTACHMENT A
City Council Meeting
January 26, 2010
Page 3 of 4
D. Decision on extension application. The City Council will hold a public hearing
at which time all evidence and testimony regarding the request for an extension of
the amortization period will be considered. The burden will be on the applicant to
establish that the extension should be granted. Such hearing may be continued by
the City Council as needed to allow for introduction of relevant evidence or to allow
time for additional relevant information to be compiled at the Council's request. In
rendering a decision, the City Council should consider the following factors (note: to
the extent that any applicant refuses to provide any information listed below, the City
Council may consider any evidence/documentation provided as a substitute,
although the Council retains the discretion as to how much weight to give to such
substitute evidence) :
1. The poultry slaughtering business owner's or property owner's financial
investment in the business, in particular the amount of investment prior to
notice of the City's intent to amortize existing legal nonconforming poultry
slaughtering businesses, which for the purposes of this chapter was
October 26, 2009.
2. The present actual and depreciated value of business improvements.
3. The applicable Internal Revenue Service depreciation schedules.
4. The remaining useful life of the business improvements.
5. The cost of relocating the business.
6. The ability of the business owner or property owner to change the use to a
conforming use.
7. The good faith efforts made to recoup the investment and to relocate the
use.
8. The effects of the poultry slaughtering business on the health, safety and
welfare of surrounding businesses and uses if the business were to be
permitted to extend the amortization period.
E. The decision shall be in the form of a written resolution and must include
findings in support of the decision to grant or deny any extension of the amortization
period.
F. The decision of the City Council will be final and subject to judicial review
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.8."
As described above, were the Council to include an extension provision, a hearing on
the extension application would be heard by the City Council at a public hearing where
the Council would decide if an extension is warranted and if so, how long the extension
period would be.
Poultry slaughtering in the City of Rosemead has a history of creating a public nuisance
and adversely impacting surrounding residential areas and water quality. The City has
received numerous complaints over many years about the odor related to poultry
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission hereby makes a finding of adequacy
with the Negative Declaration and HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the City Council adopt
the Negative Declaration, as the environmental clearance for Municipal Code
Amendment 09-03.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
that Municipal Code Amendment 09-03 is in the best interest of the public necessity and
general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed
municipal code amendment, in that the change to the Rosemead Municipal Code will
provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the
city.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES
that Municipal Code Amendment 09-03 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan
in that the land use element of the General Plan does not identify specifically permitted
uses, rather the General Plan specifies that zoning regulations establish specific uses
allowed within the light industrial land use designations of the City. While the General
Plan does recognize that light industrial may be used for "limited food processing uses,"
the zoning code has prohibited the establishment of new poultry slaughter businesses
since 1991. The proposed ordinance will simply amortize any such remaining uses over
the next three years.
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of Municipal Code Amendment 09-03, amending Section
17.12 of the Rosemead Municipal Code related to the amortization of nonconforming
poultry slaughter businesses.
SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on December 7, 2009 by the following vote:
YES: Alarcon, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz
NO: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Eng
SECTION 6. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7t' day of December 2009.
Tana Herrera, Chairwoman
EXHIBIT B
CERTIFICATION
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: Alarcon, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz
NO: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Eng
heri Bermejo, Secretary
EXHIBIT B
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
1. Project title:
Municipal Code Amendment 09-03
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Rosemead, 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770
3. Contact person and phone number:
Brian Saeki, Community Development Director 626-569-2157
4. Project location:
Citywide Municipal Code Amendment
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
City of Rosemead, 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770
6. General Plan designation:
Citywide
7. Zoning:
Citywide
8. Description of project:
The City of Rosemead is proposing to amend Rosemead Zoning Ordinance Section 17.12
to amortize all nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by
December 31, 2012. There will be no associated development related to this code
amendment.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
The project encompasses the entire City limits.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
C
Initial Study Environmental
SECTION 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Less Than
Significant With
Significant No
Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation
Impact Impact
1. Aesthetics
Would the project:
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. Agriculture Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
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?
3. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable a
ir quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑
❑
the applicable air quality plan?
EXHIBIT C
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
❑ ❑ ® ❑
projected air quality violation?
c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
❑ ❑ ❑
quality standard (including releasing
emissions, which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
❑ ❑ ❑
pollutant concentrations?
e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a
❑ ❑ ❑
substantial number of people?
4. Bi
W
ological Resources
ould the project.,
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?
EXHI
BIT C
3
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Environmental Issues
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
❑ ❑ ❑
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
S. Cu
W
ltural Resources
ould the project.
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?
6. Ge
W
ology and Soils
ould the project.
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?
EXHIBIT C
Initial Studv Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Environmental Issues
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
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?
7. Ha
W
zards and Hazardous Materials
ould the project:
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
❑ ❑ ❑ 10
involving the likely release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
_
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
❑ ❑ ❑
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d)
Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
❑ ❑ ❑
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land
use plan, or where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
❑ ❑ ❑
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
.
.
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
❑ ❑ ❑
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
❑ ❑ ❑
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
EXHIBIT C
Initial Studv Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Environmental Issues
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
h)
Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
❑ ❑ ❑ 10
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
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?
EXHIBIT C
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Environ mental Issues
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
i)
Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
❑ ❑ ❑
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
❑ ❑ ❑
m udflow?
9. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a)
Physically divide an established
❑ ❑ ❑
community?
b)
Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific
❑ ❑ ❑
plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c)
Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural communities
❑ ❑ ❑
conservation plan?
10. Mi
W
neral Resources
ould the project:
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?
11. No
W
ise
ould the project result in:
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?
C
Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Less Than
Significant Less Than
Environmental Issues
Significant
Impact
With Significant No
Mitigation Impact Impact
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?
12. Population and Housing
Would the project:
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?
13. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire Protection?
❑
❑ ❑
b) Police Protection?
❑
.
❑ ❑
c) Schools?
❑
❑ ❑
d) Parks?
El
El El z
- _
e) Other public facilities?
❑
❑ ❑
14. Recreation
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?
EXHIBIT C
Initial Studv Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
15. Tr
W
ansportation/Traffic
ould the project:
a)
Cause an increase in traffic. which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in
❑ ❑ ® ❑
either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
_
congestion at intersections)?
b)
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by
❑ ❑ ❑
the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
❑ ❑ ❑
or a change in location that results in
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)?
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project
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?
EXHIBIT C
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
e)
Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it has
'
❑ ❑ ❑
s
adequate capacity to serve the project
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?
17. Ma
ndatory Findings of Significance
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?
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?
EXHIBIT C
10
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed use would
not
result in a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the preceding checklist and
supported by substantial evidence provided in this document.
❑
Aesthetics
❑ Agriculture ❑ Air Quality
Resources
❑
Biological Resources
❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
❑ Hydrology/Water ❑ Land Use/Planning
Materials
Quality
❑
Mineral Resources
❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing
❑
Public Services
❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic
❑
Utilities/Services
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Systems
C
Initial Studv Environmental Checklist
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 measure based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards,
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signed
Date IiGo
C
Initial
SECTION 2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AESTHETICS
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
aesthetic impacts as a result of this project.
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to agricultural resources as a result of this project.
3. AIR QUALITY
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. However, there could be an
impact to air quality as there could be an increase in vehicle trips from patrons who
would be required to travel elsewhere to purchase goods from other poultry slaughter
businesses. Given that there are numerous other poultry slaughter facilities in the
general area, the impact to air quality would be de minimus.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to biological resources as a result of this project.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to cultural resources as a result of this project.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to geology and soils as a result of this project.
EXHIBIT C
13
Initial
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to hazards and hazardous materials as a result of this project.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to hydrology and water quality as a result of this project.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to land use and planning as a result of this project.
10. MINERAL
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to mineral resources as a result of this project.
11. NOISE
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
noise impacts as a result of this project.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to population and housing as a result of this project.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to public services as a result of this project.
14. RECREATION
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
EXHIBIT C
14
Initial
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to recreation as a result of this project.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. However, there could be an
increase in vehicle trips from patrons who would be required to travel elsewhere to
purchase goods from other poultry slaughter businesses. Given that there are
numerous other poultry slaughter facilities in the general area, the impact to
transportation/traffic would be de minimus.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there will be no
impacts to utilities and service systems as a result of this project.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed code amendment will amortize all legal nonconforming poultry
slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There is no
physical development associated with this amendment. Therefore, there are no
mandatory findings of significance that need to be made.
EXHIBIT C
15
Initial
SECTION 3
REFERENCES
1. City of Rosemead General Plan, October 14, 2008
2. City of Rosemead Municipal Code
EXHIBIT C
16
ORDINANCE NO. 883
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY
SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council finds and declares that
(a) On May 14, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 683, which eliminated
poultry and rabbit slaughter as permitted uses within the M-I zone of the City.
(b) Pursuant to Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 17.12, legal nonconforming businesses
established after the effective date of Chapter 17.12 may continue in operation, but are not
permitted to expand.
(c) There are presently existing in the City one or more, nonconforming poultry slaughter
businesses. Given the present zoning of the City of Rosemead, such business(es) are located in
close proximity to existing residential properties. This proximity results in the concerns related
to the health and general welfare of surrounding properties and uses. More specifically, and with
regard to one business in particular, the slaughter of poultry has resulted in complaints
concerning odor and improper elimination of waste products, as evidenced by public testimony
before the City Council on numerous occasions. Further, complaints have been made to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board as well as the Los Angeles County Public Works and
Health Departments for excessive odor and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) violations. Finally, the presence of large numbers of live chickens and the slaughter of
same creates health concerns in terms of possible propagation of Avian and or H 1 N 1 flu (a
combination of swine and avian flu strains).
(d) It is well established that through zoning, the city may eliminate nonconforming uses as
rapidly as is consistent with the rights of users of the property. As of the effective date of this
ordinance, any legal, nonconforming businesses in the City will have had the opportunity to
operate for over 18 years. The City Council finds that this over eighteen year period when
combined with the additional three years provided by this ordinance is a reasonable period of
time for such uses to either be made conforming or be eliminated and for such businesses to have
recouped their investment in the depreciable aspects of such businesses.
(e) Nothing in this ordinance is intended to authorize, legalize, or permit the establishment,
operation, or maintenance of any business, building, or use which violates any city ordinance or
any statute of the State of California regarding public nuisances, health and safety or zoning.
LA #4843-6862-0292 v1 -I- ATTACHMENT B
SECTION 2. Amendments to Section 17.12.060.
Section 17.12.105 of Chapter 17.12 of Title 17 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code
is hereby added to read as follows
"Section 17.12.105 Amortization of Nonconforming PL oultry Slaughter Businesses.
A. Amortization period. After three (3) years from the effective date of this Ordinance,
no person may cause, allow, or permit the continued operation, maintenance or use of
a lot, building or structure as a legal nonconforming poultry slaughter business. For
the purposes of this section, the term "legal nonconforming poultry slaughter
business" means any poultry slaughter business use which was legally established and
lawfully operating on May 14, 1991, which is the date upon which the ordinance
repealing such use as a permitted use was adopted.
B. Early termination. Any discontinuance or abandonment of a legal nonconforming
poultry slaughtering business for a period of 30 consecutive days will result in a loss
of the legal nonconforming status of such use.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and
each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or
unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the
manner required by law.
LA #4843-6862-0292 v1 -2- ATTACHMENT B
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 12010.
Margaret Clark, Mayor
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph M. Montes. City Attorney
LA a4843-6862-0292 v1 -3- ATTACHMENT B