Loading...
CC - Item 6A - Zone Change 10-01 - Changing classificaiton of 8 city parks to the O-S zoning designationROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 23, 2010 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 10-01, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF EIGHT (8) CITY PARKS TO THE O-S (OPEN SPACE) ZONING DESIGNATION SUMMARY The City of Rosemead proposes to change the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the O-S (Open Space) zoning designation. The proposed zone change will bring the zoning designation of these parks into consistency with the City's existing General Plan goals and policies, as required by State law. The following parks will be affected by this zone change: Angelus Park, Garvey Park, Guess Park, Klingerman Park, Rosemead Park, Sally Tanner Park, Triangle Park, and Zapopan Park. A location map of these eight (8) parks has been attached as Exhibit "B" and an assessor's parcel map for each park has been attached as Exhibit "C." On March 1, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed Zone Change 10-01 and adopted Resolution No. 10-04, recommending approval of the zone change to the City Council. The Planning Commission staff report, Resolution No. 10-04, and the draft meeting minutes have been attached as Exhibit "D, E and F." STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 887, changing the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the O-S (Open Space) zoning designation. ANALYSIS The Parks and Recreation Department is pursuing statewide grant funding for renovations to City parks, which will require the issuance of City permits to improve the appearance, play opportunities, efficiency, safety, and accessibility. The current Land Use Element of the General Plan designates our City parks as Open Space or Public Facilities. However, on the zoning map, park space is currently designated as either R-1 (Single-Family Residential), R-2 (Light Multiple Residential), R- 3 (Medium Multiple Residential), A-1 (Light Agricultural), M-1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial), or C-3 (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay). These zoning designations are not listed as corresponding zoning districts with the Open Space land use designation in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Matrix, as APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: ITEM City Council Meeting March 23, 2010 Page 2 of 8 illustrated in Exhibit "G." Therefore, without General Plan and Zoning consistency, the proposed renovations cannot be completed. The proposed zone change of these eight (8) parks to Open Space will bring the zoning designation of these parks into consistency with the City's General Plan. The Open Space designation applies to public properties set aside for diverse recreational interests, such as parks. The Open Space zone permits public uses such as parks and recreation facilities. On March 1, 2010, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing. After hearing all testimonies, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the project to the City Council. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change may be permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65860 (a), a zone change must be found consistent with the City's General Plan. A. Land Use: The General Plan designation will remain as Open Space or Public Facilities and will allow for the eight (8) City parks to be consistent with City codes and land uses in the surrounding area. The General Plan Open Space and Public Facilities land use designations are designed to support public facilities, including parks. The proposed zoning of the site is consistent with the current land uses of the City of Rosemead's General Plan and Municipal Code. According to the Zoning Ordinance/General Plan Consistency Matrix (Table LU-2) of the General Plan, the Open Space land use designation is consistent with the Open Space zone and all zones are permitted under the Public Facilities land use designation. B. Circulation: Potential impacts to traffic and transportation depend on the extent of a proposed project and local conditions. Each new proposed park project will be required to provide efficient vehicular access to the site. Furthermore, all park projects will be required to satisfy the parking requirements outlined in the municipal code. C. Housing: The proposed zone change will not induce new population growth nor displace existing housing units or people. The Parks and Recreation Department is pursuing statewide grant funding for renovations to City parks, which will improve the appearance, play opportunities, efficiency, safety, and accessibility to the parks. D. Resource Management: Any proposed development resulting from this Zone Change 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. City Council Meeting March 23, 2010 Pace 3 of 8 E. Noise: The proposed development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction activities to the parks shall be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code. F. Public Safety: There will not be a new increase in population or density as a result of the Zone Change, so the need for more public safety and public areas is not impacted. Instead, the improvements will significantly improve the appearance, play opportunities, efficiency, safety, and accessibility to the 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. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Rosemead City Council adopted a General Plan update and certified an accompanying Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) on October 14, 2008. The certified Program EIR provided a program-level assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from development pursuant to land use policy and implementation of the goals and policies set forth in all chapters of the updated General Plan, as well as the long-term implementation of the General Plan through a revised Zoning Code. Zone Change 10-01 is consistent with the Program EIR, and pursuant to Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, 15168 and 15183 is exempt from"the requirement that additional environmental documentation be prepared. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091, this public hearing notice has been mailed to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real property subject to Zone Change 10-01. In addition, this notice has been published in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the local agency. Lastly, this notice is also posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing. Prepared Su miffed by' Lily Trinh ong Assistant Planner Community Development Director Exhibits: A. Ordinance No. 887 B. Location Map of Parks C. Assessor Parcel Maps of Parks D. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 1, 2010 E. Planning Commission Resolution 10-04 F. Planning Commission Minutes, dated March 1, 2010 G. General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Matrix City Council Meeting March 23, 2010 Pace 4 of 8 Exhibit "A" ORDINANCE NO. 887 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 10-01, AMENDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF EIGHT (8) CITY PARKS TO THE O-S (OPEN SPACE) ZONING DESIGNATION. THE FOLLOWING PARKS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ZONE CHANGE: ANGELUS PARK (APN: 5283- 032-903), GARVEY PARK (APNs: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, 5287- 020-904 and 5287-021-900), GUESS PARK (APN: 5389-004-800), KLINGERMAN PARK (APNs: 5282022-270 and 5282-022-271), ROSEMEAD PARK (APN: 8592-018-902), SALLY TANNER PARK (APN: 5389-001-903), TRIANGLE PARK (APN: 5281-032-900), and ZAPOPAN PARK (APNs: 5288-005-800, 5288-005-801, 5288-005-802, 5288-005- 804, 5288-005-805, and 5288-005-806). WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted Zoning Ordinance and associated maps, including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, approval of Zone Change 10-01 would designate the eight (8) parks as O-S (Open Space), allowing parks; and WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law, Title 17, and Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes and sets standards for approval of Zone Change applications and governs development of private properties; and WHEREAS, Section 17.116.010 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve zone change applications whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practices justify such action; and WHEREAS, City of Rosemead policy encourages consistency of its Zoning Code with the General Plan and promotes separation of conflicting land uses through good planning practices; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2010, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission considered Zone Change 10-01 and recommended approval to the City Council after the Commission made findings that the proposed application will not have a significant impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2010, five hundred twenty (520) notices were mailed to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real property subject to Zone Change 10-01, a notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on March 12, 2010, and notices were posted in six (6) City Council Meeting March 23, 2010 Page 5 of 8 public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony, and after hearing all testimonies from the public, the Commission recommended approval to the City Council of Zone Change 10-01; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10- 04, thereby recommending approval to the City Council of Zone Change 10-01; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 2010, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony relative to Zone Change 10-01; and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them and hereby make the following determination: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to the City of Rosemead's CEQA Procedures and CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance will not have a potential significant environmental impact. The Rosemead City Council adopted a General Plan update and certified an accompanying Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) on October 14, 2008. The certified Program EIR provided a program-level assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from development pursuant to land use policy and implementation of the goals and policies set forth in all chapters of the updated General Plan, as well as the long-term implementation of the General Plan through a revised Zoning Code. Zone Change 10-01 is consistent with the Program EIR, and pursuant to Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, 15168 and 15183 is exempt from the requirement that additional environmental documentation be prepared. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND DECLARES that changing the zoning classification of these eight (8) parks to O-S (Open Space) will bring the zoning designation into consistency with the City's General Plan. Section 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS that Zone Change 10-01 meets the City's goals and objectives as follows: A. Land Use: The General Plan designation will remain as Open Space or Public Facilities and will allow for the eight (8) City parks to be consistent with City codes and land uses in the surrounding area. The General Plan Open Space and Public Facilities land use designations are designed to support public facilities, including City Council Meeting March 23, 2010 Paqe 6 of 8 parks. The proposed zoning of the-site is consistent with the current land uses of the City of Rosemead's General Plan and Municipal Code. According to the Zoning Ordinance/General Plan Consistency Matrix (Table LU-2) of the General Plan, the Open Space land use designation is consistent with the Open Space zone and all zones are permitted under the Public Facilities land use designation. B. Circulation: Potential impacts to traffic and transportation depend on the extent of a proposed project and local conditions. Each new proposed park project will be required to provide efficient vehicular access to the site. Furthermore, all park projects will be required to satisfy the parking requirements outlined in the municipal code. C. Housing: The proposed zone change will not induce new population growth nor displace existing housing units or people. The Parks and Recreation Department is pursuing statewide grant funding for renovations to City parks, which will improve the appearance, play opportunities, efficiency, safety, and accessibility to the parks. D. Resource Management: Any proposed development resulting from this Zone Change 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. All construction activities to the parks shall be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code. F. Public Safety: There will not be a new increase in population or density as a result of the Zone Change, so the need for more public safety and public areas is not impacted. Instead, the improvements will significantly improve the appearance, play opportunities, efficiency, safety, and accessibility to the 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. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Zone Change 10-01, to change the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the O-S (Open Space) zoning designation. The proposed zone change will bring the zoning designation of these parks into consistency with the City's General Plan goals and policies, as required by State law. The following parks will be affected by this zone change: Angelus Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5283-032-903), Garvey Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, 5287-020-904, and 5287-021-900), Guess Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5389-004-800), Klingerman Park (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5282022-270 and 5282-022-271), Rosemead Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 8592- 018-902), Sally Tanner Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5389-001-903), Triangle Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5281-032-900), and Zapopan Park (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5288-005-800, 5288-005-801, 5288-005-802, 5288-005-804, 5288-005-805, and 5288-005-806). City Council Meeting March 23, 2010 Paoe 7 of 8 Section 5. 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. 867 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 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED, this March 23, 2010. Margaret Clark, Mayor ATTEST: GLORIA MOLLEDA, City Clerk City Council Meeting March 23, 2010 Page 8 of 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROSEMEAD I Gloria Molleda, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 887 being: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 10-01, AMENDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF EIGHT (8) CITY PARKS TO THE O-S (OPEN SPACE) ZONING DESIGNATION. THE FOLLOWING PARKS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ZONE CHANGE: ANGELUS PARK (APN: 5283- 032-903), GARVEY PARK (APNs: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, 5287- 020-904, and 5287-021-900), GUESS PARK (APN: 5389-004-800), KLINGERMAN PARK (APNs: 5282-022-270 and 5282-022-271), ROSEMEAD PARK (APN: 8592-018-902), SALLY TANNER PARK (APN: 5389-001-903), TRIANGLE PARK (APN: 5281-032-900), and ZAPOPAN PARK (APNs: 5288-005-800, 5288-005-801, 5288-005-802, 5288-005- 804, 5288-005-805, and 5288-005-806). Ordinance 887 was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the March 23, 2010, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: GLORIA MOLLEDA, City Clerk Exhibit "B" Zone Change 10-01 Exhibit "C" - . T I.,1 RI f]M I£AY➢ LYIOII(OIN.TVtl SE Yiip 01!IC:6T£ACRi.e J ~1~ iMg I 6ID.t IkM QW Y¢dPl~ 'Dlq I I M S ➢ 1 f tlV m/glNlWAiJ OXtl CY+.C ~ I „ ' 1 I 5317 1 1 N lr.r - -AVE eGPAW . 15768 .mm 6 TRACT ElST ? 1 ' ~ , REPUi N RCFW _ _ O/ a m a C i r i G j T s a G - n I M _ ° r 36 B , , 3 10 l yy J 1 _ - ' ' MSS 9 ] IIf~M N I e I n n a L{ ~u / S/pA, 16 - a tr-- Md I lie :¢.y 1:rm ,I le; ° xmaum.v w3 5: 1 ~ ' 2 L' ➢e 1 liar ~mA I ~ oYi O J I ~ - Jj $Y , nes J 1 l T SH1 i }I e 110 S % 4b is 03 e n<tm~orrs.wmuwaeum.c...¢ nun.um:,.o.mun.f~w.ollmau CiMR.IE^JSaCIC FWIflM01C, Pg `e 1 { I ➢ - w.vw¢o,cvnxamr..w¢.¢m,mev I ~ Ncpwnaowrwavsa¢. ca.vi.¢n :.mra¢. 5372 ; IRV ess < .,n..a Sally Tanner $ w Park ~5 ~I~ 4 n3 1 0 „ n e I I w b , ~ 1 _ . - _ . . _ _ [ULtlIY UI lIA ,¢4tlt] NU I. j 15389_L4 Guess Park 0 / . qvf 26 © 2, 23 22 26 N~ 0(I... IIrY. {Ni 4p_. of 2 12 OU GFWE urc♦ © AVC X y :fao user. D II u(9• ur.= 9 0 O 5]12 3 b 11 I! 19 ir. V'i• {5' 6i 0 ® 0 ® II p un- 4 o O r i e ♦f0 ~ © O n o 0 0 Q BK♦ O © © q 711 © 571] p - o u ©L tW iM• Ai^t li 0 IF I! I6 A 0 Od5 E) Oy ♦ ~i O 6+ 1 13 V wo. 2 A i uo- i YI4.LAi1D 'N AVE..! t a~ O ` o0u TRACT N7.I5827 M.B 745. 21.20 6219 TRACT NDJ5954 - KIL 352•}9'yp TRACT NO 16120 M.B. ]0]-2425 rm MCI, AMt tic WCENSED VAMYOI(S MAR L.A 30-2.12 bN-ipnn - _ EL CWNiY OF C6 WS AN A\GC[6 G4C. 8B92 is 2001 W ` 4a ace r - to i i O < < If p L~j _$0.0a 91 W IB IIaY -~~f eiiJ tj PrTr2N 7;. r2 _ Is r « Muni FF. L x<©~.. I aro o-un e a noel- Q C16-/272 - W tau 13 CODE 221 I I M W. M IM-32 3 iaz 1.5.3vSG rn,<, TRACT NO. 1612 sial) N M.B. 20- 193 12 nnm nts n <.rrti 22mommrzr CI Rosemead Park Folio ,::aam.u . 5 2006 3917 1985 - ~I < W-P v RijN/tiICN0t 1 O _ 1 l 11 n ea 8]61 fc~p Ci r w 8 . 7 AVE. t . U JdC 9 ; ro rm a d nl S4 ,a 387 ® ® C o uen < •RM n IP N I io DELTA AVE 0 r e .Y Zapopan ' Park 39 j e 83 • F n I o n i , l ' 4M 0" ANCCLLLS m. >Z Um4.yw,• it p iminpul.w nM.. mMNZ ' 4 AVE A . I ne V.j.y, enn.le..l4mi. aim ~Iln+.iu sh4 \\a p P n L79 as 11• L33 w p ®0 Oar 31 • O -NO Y T µ u I ~ ® O P J O 1~ i2D C ll IZI .2 Izl 12f L3 I?8 IV 1r I ( .128.129_ `r 11~ ` pq m i M 27k TRACT NO. 37v: K3. a0-35 n . i FF _ ro ; Y. 1 3583 - r - - _ i I n I . I • 1 I.e lu:v` Y u } av ` 3988 TRACT NO. GOT? LLB. 74-42 - - - ' - - 3 CHARLOTTE AVE. . OCT I ~ LICENSED SLIRVEYOR'S YAP L.S.3046-20 R% PREY, 133YT k'f: PARCEL MAP N_22@ .79 _19 7 O As8E4 9 0P.'3 YAP COUNTY OF LO S A NGELES, viii. 52s' - 20 5287 21 1 so _ OONOTNI 3S 4 ST .(a.a arf 51 a C LN(f w ryio01~ ew.ir a Garvey Park LANDS OF THE SAN GABRIEL IMPROVEMENT COMPANY .N..N..... M.R. 54 - 71 - 72 awm w u .rm, uur. >9 s EMERSON PL. Y R.f„ w carton RICHARD a"' ,.'s9S S -RATE DRNL~ 23 11 i r~~aJr -low /A201 . ` MR f i rANGEUl6 [733 II L___ Angelus 31 J ` Park 07 I 7- ~IJ: ADOW N02 I a I a tapx G7 70 i m.n. ; - I I - iL r ` A I BK 0.1 P M 747-15-16 +I ; 5279 r r1i~a ! pp g IT IT n ! r +ax s r p 2J ! v rn•.: va xn - ~ y' p vv Ai I I u y ~ a, o n i AU e 0 ' ~ 69-71 MR I!{, 1 IIfYf irt]~n, _7RA" 49 1 72 MB 176.45 .4 0 3 7 yl6p ~N0 I tsa rppaa I p C'7 p 3; ~ I 69 {il 71 , AVB A OaN •9432 15281 37~ - v::+ PtNn3e x I )J L4 nunza3 a m v' +s 44Y'~ F.., I d• 0,194 . n ~ ,p.0, nA~• f I: µ 1 r'ry.uui m Ax^ 1 V 4 MA 1,..... C w w ~ 'j-fin, 1 ss a asa*A-_~iJ t 30 ~~~y 1 ~ s - -L'- a i V tl..w C: a 'c0 J 2 Ma DiA NO 9CLLC (D 01 OmI !1 NO 6 A, "C l o l a U I tlY. t 4w' r l/ y 1 A,n•,.'I µ~m j:qM,.~ V "41~ 0,2 t YZ .4 I I' 1 43 i AWWIEO~~ 3-Ii -3- 1 1 -"j I I y z ^ 1 2 3 F 2 Il p OiiCiO;(5 u \ MIN triangle Park QA'. (f DETAIL c~ A ~c L~ sz7i No .Lc 3273 TLO POMONA FPWY. CODC TWL7'NO 701 M&19.110.111 6459 "7J PARCEL MAP - _ _ PM. 20_63 ' NN PAKFI. MAP PM 2699 NO IV5 FM ntv. AnMI M8 MSF 55675 M.v um x TRACT NO. 3p453„ 1.0.900.4130 COUNTY OF LOG ANGELES, CAUF. animn m. um. a,+s<s r~~n aMCew araaiKA,assx gun mum ioe@m mnirm,osumes Z sen mo iwr umn avnawieam ' J 21 \ PGI19 ' PG 17 p0 75 PG 12 d ! +NOFii" , FRESd__ r 1 _ AIR AVE a p n .r$1 A*' TRACT € NO 3260 ? , ~ N p r on me umree ® . i I a > ur`r , .va-3• - w ~'aE~n a n 2009 R ~ I PG ~ 23 9uLp FwaJ l f/ e1 M.1.p .py anx A $ 2 177-. i_ BN 5283 1R~,CT NO 830 m~ V I ' „ve PG €I ® 23 1 a"c 6 z < 03 S r f a le y I pp °pa MBi 34 X21 MB A 16 - 117 ' I 0 b - - m" AP-t. - , ._~cT 41 _ ~ aqL- _ftbtM_---___ 1552 4 5281 YM4 3943 Exhibit "D" ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: MARCH 1, 2010 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 10-01, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF EIGHT (8) CITY PARKS TO THE O-S (OPEN SPACE) ZONING DESIGNATION SUMMARY The City of Rosemead proposes to change the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the O-S (Open Space) zoning designation. The proposed zone change will bring the zoning designation of these parks into consistency with the City's existing General Plan goals and policies, as required by State law. The following parks will be affected by this zone change: Angelus Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5283-032-903), Garvey Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, 5287-020-904, and 5287-021-900), Guess Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5389-004-800), Klingerman Park (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5282022-270 and 5282-022-271), Rosemead Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 8592-018-902), Sally Tanner Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5389-001-903), Triangle Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5281-032-900), and Zapopan Park (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5288-005-800, 5288-005-801, 5288-005-802, 5288- 005-804, 5288-005-805, and 5288-005-806). A location map of these eight (8) parks can be found in Exhibit "D." ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Rosemead City Council adopted a General Plan update and certified an accompanying Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) on October 14, 2008. The certified Program EIR provided a program-level assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from development pursuant to land use policy and implementation of the goals and policies set forth in all chapters of the updated General Plan, as well as the long-term implementation of the General Plan through a revised Zoning Code. Zone Change 10-01 is consistent with the Program EIR, and pursuant to Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, 15168 and 15183 is exempt from the requirement that additional environmental documentation be prepared. Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Pace 2 of 23 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-04, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 887 changing the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the O-S (Open Space) zoning designation. ANALYSIS The Parks and Recreation Department is pursuing statewide grant funding for renovations to City parks, which will require the issuance of City permits. They are hoping to significantly improve the appearance, play opportunities, efficiency, safety, and accessibility to the parks. The current Land Use Element of the General Plan designates our City parks as Open Space or Public Facilities. However, on the zoning map, they are designated as either R-1 (Single-Family Residential), R-2 (Light Multiple Residential), R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential), A-1 (Light Agricultural), M-1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial), or C-3 (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay). Furthermore, these zoning designations are not listed as corresponding zoning districts with the Open Space land use designation in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Matrix, as illustrated in "Exhibit C" and without General Plan and Zoning consistency, the proposed renovations cannot be completed. Below is a table illustrating the current General Plan designations, current zoning designations, and future zoning designations for these eight (8) parks. Park Current Zone General Plan Designation Future Zone Sally Tanner R-3 Open Space O-S Guess Park A-1 Open Space O-S Rosemead Park R-1 Open Space O-S Zapopan Park C-31D and R-2 Public Facilities O-S Garvey Park R-2 Open Space O-S Angelus Park M-1 AP Public Facilities O-S AP Triangle Park R-1 Open Space O-S Klingerman Park A-1 Open Space O-S The proposed zone change of these eight (8) parks to Open Space will bring the zoning designation of these parks into consistency with the City's General Plan. The Open Space designation applies to public properties set aside for diverse recreational interests, such as parks. The Open Space zone permits public uses such as parks and recreation facilities. Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Page 3 of 23 MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change may be permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65860 (a), a zone change must be found consistent with the City's General Plan. A. Land Use: The General Plan designation will remain as Open Space or Public Facilities and will allow for the eight (8) City parks to be consistent with City codes and land uses in the surrounding area. The General Plan Open Space and Public Facilities land use designations are designed to support public facilities, including parks. The proposed zoning of the site is consistent with the current land uses of the City of Rosemead's General Plan and Municipal Code. According to the Zoning Ordinance/General Plan Consistency Matrix (Table LU-2) of the General Plan, the Open Space land use designation is consistent with the Open Space zone and all zones are permitted under the Public Facilities land use designation. B. Circulation: Potential impacts to traffic and transportation depend on the extent of a proposed project and local conditions. Each new proposed park project will be required to provide efficient vehicular access to the site. Furthermore, all park projects will be required to satisfy the parking requirements outlined in the municipal code. C. Housing: The proposed zone change will not induce new population growth nor displace existing housing units or people. The Parks and Recreation Department is pursuing statewide grant funding for renovations to City parks, which will improve the appearance, play opportunities, efficiency, safety, and accessibility to the parks. D. Resource Management: Any proposed development resulting from this Zone Change 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. All construction activities to the parks shall be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code. F. Public Safety: There will not be a new increase in population or density as a result of the Zone Change, so the need for more public safety and public areas is not impacted. Instead, the improvements will significantly improve the appearance, play opportunities, efficiency, safety, and accessibility to the 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. Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 Page 4 of 23 PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091, this public hearing notice has been mailed to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real property subject to Zone Change 10-01. In addition, this notice has been published in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the local agency. Lastly, this notice is also posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing. Prepare S bmitted by: Lily Trinh VA ng Assistant Planner Community Deveopment Director, Exhibits A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-04 B. Draft Ordinance No. 887 C. Location Map of Parks D. General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Matrix E. Assessor Parcel Maps of Parks Exhibit "E" PC RESOLUTION 10-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 10-01 AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 887, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF EIGHT (8) CITY PARKS TO THE O-S (OPEN SPACE) ZONING DESIGNATION (ANGELUS PARK (APN: 5283- 032-903), GARVEY PARK (APNs: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, 5287- 020-904, and 5287-021-900), GUESS PARK (APN: 5389-004-800), KLINGERMAN PARK (APNs: 5282022-270 and 5282-022-271), ROSEMEAD PARK (APN: 8592-018-902), SALLY TANNER PARK (APN: 5389-001-903), TRIANGLE PARK (APN: 5281-032-900), and ZAPOPAN PARK (APNs: 5288-005-800, 5288-005-801, 5288-005-802, 5288-005- 804, 5288.005-805, and 5288-005-806). WHEREAS, Section 17.116.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth procedures and requirements for Zone Changes; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has adopted the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including specific development standards, to control development; and WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 and 17.124 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed zone changes to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2010, five hundred twenty (520) notices were mailed to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real property subject to Zone Change 10-01, a notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on February 19, 2010, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Zone Change 10-01; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. October 14, 2008. The certified Program EIR provided a program-level assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from development pursuant to land use policy and implementation of the goals and policies set forth in all chapters of the updated General Plan, as well as the long-term implementation of the General Plan through a revised Zoning Code. Zone Change 10-01 is consistent with the Program EIR, and pursuant to Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, 15168 and 15183 is exempt from the requirement that additional environmental documentation be prepared. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 10-01 is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change, 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 Zone Change 10-01 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: A. Land Use: The General Plan designation will remain as Open Space or Public Facilities and will allow for the eight (8) City parks to be consistent with City codes and land uses in the surrounding area. The General Plan Open Space and Public Facilities land use designations are designed to support public facilities, including parks. The proposed zoning of the site is consistent with the current land uses of the City of Rosemead's General Plan and Municipal Code. According to the Zoning Ordinance/General Plan Consistency Matrix (Table LU-2) of the General Plan, the Open Space land use designation is consistent with the Open Space zone and all zones are permitted under the Public Facilities land use designation. B. Circulation: Potential impacts to traffic and transportation depend on the extent of a proposed project and local conditions. Each new proposed park project will be required to provide efficient vehicular access to the site. Furthermore, all park projects will be required to satisfy the parking requirements outlined in the municipal code. C. Housing: The proposed zone change will not induce new population growth nor displace existing housing units or people. The Parks and Recreation Department is pursuing statewide grant funding for renovations to City parks, which will improve the appearance, play opportunities, efficiency, safety, and accessibility to the parks. D. Resource Management: Any proposed development resulting from this Zone Change 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. All construction activities to the parks shall be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code. F. Public Safety: There will not be a new increase in population or density as a result of the Zone Change, so the need for more public safety and public areas is not impacted. Instead, the improvements will significantly improve the appearance, play opportunities, efficiency, safety, and accessibility to the 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. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of Zone Change 10-01 to change the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the O-S (Open Space) zoning designation. The proposed zone change will bring the zoning designation of these parks into consistency with the City's General Plan goals and policies, as required by State law. The following parks will be affected by this zone change: Angelus Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5283- 032-903), Garvey Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, 5287- 020-904, and 5287-021-900), Guess Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5389-004-800), Klingerman Park (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5282022-270 and 5282-022-271), Rosemead Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 8592-018-902), Sally Tanner Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5389-001-903), Triangle Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5281-032-900), and Zapopan Park (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5288-005-800, 5288- 005-801, 5288-005-802, 5288-005-804, 5288-005-805, and 5288-005-806). SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission March 1, 2010 by the following vote: YES: ALARCON, ENG, HERRERA, HUNTER AND RUIZ NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE 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 1St day of Mar h, 2010. 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 15t day of March, 2010 by the following vote: YES: ALARCON, ENG, HERRERA, HUNTER AND RUIZ NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Stan wo , Secretary Exhibit "F" Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Herrera at 7:00 p.m., at the Rosemead Community Recreation Center, 3936 N. Muscatel Avenue, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Eng INVOCATION - Vice-Chairman Alarcon ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT - Commissioners Eng, Hunter, Ruiz,•Vice-Chairman Alarcon, and Chairwoman Herrera. OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Greg Murphy, Community Development Director Wong;.Principal Planner Bermejo, Senior Planner Garry, Assistant Planner Trinh, andC ~ sign Secretary Lockwopd\ 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS n Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and ap 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes Ja ary 19, 2010 / Commissioner Eng made a motion; seconded by January 19, 2010 as,presented. Hunter, Ruiz 4. PUBLIC meeting. Alarcon to approve the minutes of A. 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. The proposed ordinance requires that all poultry slaughter businesses within the City of Rosemead cease operating within three years of adoption of the ordinance. This item was initially presented to the Planning Commission 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. At the December 7, 2009 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the item and adopted Resolution No. 09-23 with an amendment that all poultry slaughter businesses cease operating as of December 31, 2010, a period of time which would now be less than one year. The City Council conducted a public hearing on the item on January 26, 2010. At that time it was discovered that the San Gabriel Tribune had not published the required public hearing notice for the Planning Commission hearing that began on November 16, 2009. Since the City Council cannot act on the Municipal Code Amendment until a properly noticed Planning Commission hearing has occurred, the City Council opened the public hearing, took public testimony on the proposed ordinance, and then closed the public hearing without taking any further action until the item could be rescheduled and re-noticed for a new Planning Commission public hearing. PC RESOLUTION 10.05 - 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 ADOP`T,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 Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planhing Commission consider Resolufidn,No. 10-05, 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. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission consider adding extension language in Section 4 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 10405 and Section,.2 of- draft Ordinance No. 883. Finally staff recommends that Planning Commissiori,ADOPT Resolution No, 10705 in its present form or as amended with extension language included andlrecommend adoption of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts. \ Senior Planner Gary presented the.staff report. Chairwoman Herrera asked thi/~`Comm,\o eers if they\ d any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked. staff what land uses are permitted on this site under the current zoning. Senior Planner Gar-ry-stated that site'is zoned M-1-and-light industrial uses are permitted. He then referred the Principal,Planner Bermejo statedthat all,uses permitted under the C-3 (Commercial) zone are allowed in the M-1 zone and'that examples of industrial uses include uses such as storage facilities, caning facilities, and auto repair shops. d Commissioner Hunter read the background section on page 2 of staff report and requested staff to explain why this business has continued-to operate-for 18-20 years. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that poultry slaughtering was originally a permitted use in the M-1 zone and the approval of such use could be made over the counter. She also stated that council approved ordinance No. 683 on May 14, 1991, to eliminate the poultry and rabbit slaughter use from the M-1 zoning regulations. Therefore, the use is legal non-conforming today. Commissioner Eng questioned staff what zoning classification is used in cities that permit poultry slaughtering. Community Development Director Stan Wong stated that such use is generally permitted in a heavy industrial zoning classification, and such uses are usually located in a rural area because this type of use requires a lot of land. 2 Chairwoman Herrera opened the public hearing. Brian Lewin addressed the Planning Commission and stated that they have been given a rare opportunity to reconsider this item and he hopes that they will do so. Fred Herrera stated that this decision will be a difficult one and that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to represent the residents that live there. He also stated that the business has grown enough to be intrusive with the odors, discharge, and it has a negative impact on the community. He strongly recommends that the Planning Commission approve this ordinance to eliminate the poultry business from this city./ > Jean Hall stated that Cal Poultry does not deserve any favors. She also stated that slaughtering is an undesirable for those who have lived so close and have endured the odors for all this time./She also stated that Cal Poultry has recently stated that they did not know the community was unhappy with the odors, chicken blood, and the rest of the unpleasant procedures. This has been discussed at many Council meetings in previous years, and the mere fact that this complicated issue has been bounced back and forth from the'Planning Commission and'City Council shows that this is not an easy problem to resolve. She also stated that.City Council officials are elected-and the Planning Commission is appointed by City Council and now is the,time to make the right recommendations. 'She also stated lets not prolong the agony anymore and be direct and to the•point. She said lets set deadlines or give Gal Poultry the option of doing their slaughtering at the Azusa site and transporting -the chickens to the Rosemead site to sell or help the business relocate to another site that is not near residences. Phyllis Tury stated that in the last 4 years nothing has been done. She~also stated that the odors have gotten worst and she cannot even enjoy her yard on Sundays\She-sates-that she\does\have legitimate complaints and she appreciates the religion that you need fresh slaughtered chickens, but-not in her neighborhood. She also displayed two pictures taken in December, of 2009 of dead chickens in,cages that Had-been'there for two days and stated that chicken blood is being washed into-the streets and does not want this in her_neighborhood. She also stated that the cages with dead chickens/were visible to children walking,by. They have outgrown this facility and Cal Poultry's parking lot looks like a-loadirig dock. She also states she does not mind them selling the chickens, as long as the slaughtering is elsewfiere.~She also states that chickens car `ry,bacteria and the City could be fined. Adolfo Ponce-state - d this is deja all.6e again..-He.has presented this item to the previous Planning Commission and now this one, we have gone through 1 %S Administrations with this issue. He also stated that this facility has outgrown itself. He also stated that other State and County agencies had been contacted for various violations. He stated that Cal Poultry has.been told they cannot wash blood down the sewer lines by the Water Quality Agency and theystill continue to do it. He stated that Cal'Poultry does not have any regard for City ordinances, and he hopes the Planning Commission will make a fair recommendation. William Su statedthat he respects the residents concerns with the owner, and he appreciates the displays and opinions of respecting religion.He also stated that this business has been allowed to operate for 20 years and feels that they should be•allowed-to continue to operate and make the improvements to the facility. He also stated that other cities no longer allow licensing for this type of business now, so where will this business go and how will they survive. He also requested/that the city please work with business to allow them to provide this service to the community. Colin Lennard, the attorney representing Cal Poultry, stated that he would like to make the same recommendation that he made to the City Council. He said that there is only one issue, and that is odors, and no one has allowed his client to correct the odor problem. He also stated we have offered to install the appropriate equipment, at whatever the cost and what is recommended by an consultant, that we will find and pay for,, that is approved by the city, to the community and the City. He also stated we will agree to implement whatever those recommendations are and the City turned us down, as recently as one month ago. He also stated we firmly believe you don't deny a successful sales tax generating business in this City, you don't deny them the opportunity to correct the one issue that so far has gotten the attention of all the surrounding neighborhood. He also stated the he has driven around the manufacturing zone and if that is a striving residential neighborhood then he has never seen one like that before and it is a light manufacturing zone and what this city should do is let this Planning Commission let Cal Poultry have the opportunity to correct this odor issue. He also stated if they are not corrected then the City has the same opportunity available to them as you have tonight. He stated don't cut them off before they have the opportunity to do that. He stated there have been statements of previous violations in staff reports and we are talking about minor violations that have been corrected and there are no other issues outstanding. He also stated these violations occurred in 2003 and 2006 that was 4-7 years ago and another violation (that was not audible), there are no existing violations. All the existing violations have been corrected (the business license, signage issues, the so called'operiing between 8932 and 8942 Garvey) and the only outstanding violation is the odor issue. He also stated they deserve a chance to address that issue. He closed by stating that let his client have the opportunity to correct this situation. He also stated that documenting an ordinance and whatever you recommend to the City Council,is not going to mitigate the odor situation, and if you think any successful business man is going to stait..investmg capitol when they know they are going to be put out of business in one - three years is not going to~happen. He also stated, so the main issue surrounding Cal Poultry will not be going away, and the ordinance will not do anybody any good, especially the people that are proposing it, and again suggested that that it makes logical sense to let them mitigate the odors and if they can't mitigate the odors, then consider adopting the ordinance. He thanked the Planning Commission. Rick Loya stated that he would like to speak on the item for parks. Chairwoman Herrera stated this item is later Barbara Murphy stated in the late 80's the Planhing Comn square footage to have more than one unit on\resident multiple units showed up at the. Council Meeting protesti Council explained that they are now_legal•non-confo`rminc that she researched the meaning of'grandfathered" and s she is concerned that if businesses can be closed for beir Planning Commissio0romtelling homeowners of multiple and City Council approved to change the number of erty and discussed how hundreds of residents of ;hange.`She also stated that at that time the City m't worry.you will be grandfathered in. She stated she interpreted it to mean forever. She also stated non-conforming, what is to stop City Council or the e same thing. Chairwoman Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that there are some good issues that have come up and he would like to say that odors are an on-going problem: H('also stated that California has always been the State on the forefront; we were the first to pass the smokingNlaws;smog control. He also stated the plan is to beautify Garvey Avenue and we don't want to sae businesses there that are not right for the City. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the issues that have been brought up tonight are about land use and he requested his colleagues to concentrate on that. He also stated that beautification has been brought up and that the City needs change and land use is,impotariC He also stated we need to stay focused, but we also need to let the property owner have time to do what they need to do, but we need to allow the City to move forward too. Commissioner Eng stated that she agrees with Commissioner Ruiz. She stated that this is a land use issue, and it is not the appropriate land use for this site, but the decision to approve this business was 20 years ago. She also stated that this business had a right to be here and has worked hard to build a customer base. She said that in 1991 the City put a stop to it, but the City should have monitored the site better. She also stated that we have heard concerns from some members of the community, but we also need to be a better neighbor and work with the businesses so they can to address the concerns. She also stated we need to give them three years, as they have invested in the City and they will need the time for a smooth transition to a more appropriate location. 4 Commissioner Hunter stated that she would like to make three recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider. She said her first suggestion is to let Cal Poultry stay in the same location and have the chickens slaughtered at another location and have them brought in daily for freshness and not have chickens on the premises. She said her second recommendation is a one year amortization with a 180 day extension. She also stated her third recommendation is two years with no extensions. Commissioner Ruiz stated he agrees with Commissioner Eng. He said we should give Cal Poultry the three years and at the end of three years, verify if they still need more time to relocate. Commissioner Ruiz made a motion and the motion was clarified by City Ruiz motioned that Cal Poultry be given three years and adopt the re: language as in section D of the staff report. Vice-Chairman Alarcon asked Commissioner Ruiz to repeat the to be a fixed period of time, such as 18 month or two years. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the motion was for three City Attorney Murphy clarified that Commissioner Ruiz would I an extension option by applicant to reviewed by the Planning audible) e Chairwoman Herrera asked City Attorney City Attorney Murphy stated that staff would goes to the Planning Commission, the applica Vice-Chairman Alarcon Chairwoman Herrera`stated, come back to the Planning Commissioner Ruz stated I instead of City"Council;.and i City,Atto>ney Murphy stated with the extension language, was confused on what the motion is. as follows; Commissioner s recommended extension period needs the amortization ordinance include d of City Council. (This portion not city. :ion to the City Council, but if it the City Council. Ruiz is making\a motion for three years and applicant would have to )val of the extension. is for three years,-with the Planning Commission approving the extension ansion not having a set date. nmissicner Ruiz 's pending motion is to adopt the Resolution as recommended the review of the extension would go to the Planning Commission for first. . Herrera what exactly is the motion. Chairwoman motion was but was not audible. City Attorney Murphy stated the recommendation is the three year amortization period and the inclusion of the opportunity to come back for a potential extension, and that extension would be stated as it says in the staff report of Section D and read numbers 1 through 8. He also stated that the extension request would have to be presented to the Planning Commission for review. (the last sentence not audible). Chairwoman Herrera asked why staff that would approve the extension. City Attorney Murphy stated staff would review and make recommendations to the Commission, but that ultimately it would be approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ruiz made the motion, seconded by Chairwoman Herrera, to recommend the three year amortization period and to adopt the Resolution as recommended with the language in the staff report be instead of going directly to City Council that the applicant goes to the Planning Commission first for approval of extension. Vote Results were: Yes: Herrera, Ruiz No: Alarcon, Eng, Hunter Abstain: None Absent: None Chairwoman Herrera stated the motion was not passed and asked Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by period with no extension. Vote Results were: Yes: Alarcon, Hunter No: Eng, Herrera, Rr Abstain: None Absent: - None Chairwoman Herrera stated Commissioner Eng r period acceptable to relocate to a more ai city and to Vote not motion. Hunter for a fixed .2 Vear amortization a new motion. City and the basin( location so`that the Yes: \Alarci No: Eng/ Abstain: Hunte Absent: None work with Cal Poultry to determine an amortization provide a reasonable timeframe for the business to continue to serve their customers. explained why. (Not Audible) seconded by Commissioner Ruiz to recommend three years with no Herrera, Ruiz B. . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09.01 - The City of Rosemead proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to designate four key areas (nodes) in the City for mixed-use development with limitations on both residential density and building height. The current General Plan allows for mixed-use development along all major commercial corridors in the City. General Plan Amendment 09-01 also proposes the creation of a new commercial Specific Plan land use designation over two commercial areas of the City. The Specific Plan land use designation would affect the following properties: 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, 7867, 7907, 7913, 7919, 7931, 7951, and 8001 Garvey Avenue, 3011 and 3033 Denton Avenue, and 7938 Virginia Street. Lastly, General Plan Amendment 09-01 also includes amending the Circulation Element, the Resource Management Element, and the Public Safety Element to address the proposed land use changes and to comply with Assembly Bill 162 (AB 162) PC RESOLUTION 10.03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING PLANNING DIVISION STAFF TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM TO THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PROGRAM EIR) WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL/ON OCTOBER 14, 2008, PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15164 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09-01. Recommendation - Staff recommends that the (Exhibit C), a resolution directing staff to prepare Report (Program EIR) which was certified by the Guidelines Section 15164. Staff further recommer the City Council consider the environmental detenr 01. Principal Planner Bermejo presented the Brownfield, Land Use Consultant from Ho questions. Lisa Brownfield, Land Use Principal Planner Berme overview of each letter postponed due to the~fa Council for approval, the also stated the-second I about the'new. Specific recommendations to Pla City Attorney Murphy clarified Chairwoman Commissioner Eng that the gave a remission ADOPT\,Resolution No. 10-03 in to the Program Environmental Impact on October 14, 2008, pursuant to CEQA Planning Commission RECOMMEND that APPROVE General Plan`Amendment 09- point presentation. She also stated Lisa iltant from KOA are present to answer any 6d that she received two letters from property owners in the mail and provided an stated one;is from the owner,of the Auto Auction site, requesting that this item be y are out,df the country. She stated that because this item will be going to the City brt y owner will have the opport unity to discuss their issues at the Council meeting. She as from-p rope rty'owners Mc&~Mrs . Ann Lieu of 7951 Garv ey, who were concerned land use designation on their property. Principal Planner Bermejo presented staff Commission, which included revising the draft specific plan land use designation to a d•use designation, and omitting the property located at 7951 Garvey Avenue from that to Planning Commission. if there were any questions for staff. elaborate on how the new designations for mix-use were selected. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the Subcommittee looked at different scenarios, lot size, density, entrance to the city, and provided and overview of reasons why the node development pattern was better than the corridor land use pattern. Lisa Brownfield stated we not only looked at surrounding uses but where public services where and explained the benefits of having mixed use where public services are located. Commissioner Eng asked if the four-story height limitation included the first floor being commercial use. Lisa Brownfield replied yes, the maximum will be four stories with the first one being commercial use. Commissioner Eng asked what the maximum height of the four-story limitation would be. Principal Planner Bermejo stated there will be a numerical height limit proposed in the development standards which are currently being drafted. Commissioner Eng stated that was her next question; do we have development standards on height requirements. Chairwoman Herrera asked if Mayor Margaret Clark and Councilwoman Polly ,L/ow were on the Subcommittee who submitted these recommendations. Principal Planner replied yes that is correct. Chairwoman Herrera opened the public hearing. Josephine Yang stated she is speaking for the property owne designation change, who are out of the country at the moment. Sh will suffer a substantial financial loss if this is approved. She also s the Planning Commission that approved the General Plan in 2067,i stated that the City needs to have some compassion-for the present Warren Lieu stated that he is speaking in his family's income and property. Lisa Brownfield stated the High Intensity Con Principal Planner Warren Lieu stated he feels and Garvey Robert,Stacket, stated he owns. stated he~is concemed how this this mobile homepark, and that Principal Planner Be as it was in the 80's. ,affected by the mixed-use land use ed,her concern that.the property owner this is a new Planning Commission and ent to answer any questions. She also owners. amendment will financially affect nner Bermejo recommehded'that their property (7951 Garvey) not be included in use designation, and asked it that would be acceptable to him. that is correct is will stay parents. .st that the mixed-use designation be included on the properties at Del Auto Auction site. of property next to the auto auction which is a mobile home park. He also I Plan Amendment will affect this parcel. He also stated that seniors occupy have no where to go. tonight's General Plan Amendment is to keep that parcel designation commercial that it will not be included in the High Intensity Commercial designation. Brian Lewin stated that he understands from staffs comments that the ultimate goal is to build the nodes and to spread out from those nodes to fill in the corridors. He asked staff if is understanding is correct. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that this General Plan, which is a twenty year vision, only included the development in the four node areas and not the corridors. Brian Lewin asked what the longer term goal is proposed to be. Principal Planner Bermejo stated in future, 15 to 20 years from now, the future of mixed use could be readdressed. Lisa Brownfield also stated that would be twenty years from now. Brian Lewin stated he would like to request that filling in the corridors be mentioned in the General Plan because he has concerns that future developers and retailers may be concerned with projects becoming legal-nonconforming. His second concern is that we may reach the population of 61,000 by the year of 2015. He would also like to request that the language of Policy 1.7 on page 2-20 of the General Plan be re-instated because he feels it is important to stay there. n Chairwoman Herrera asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. None Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by (Exhibit C), a resolution directing staff to prepare an Ai (Program EIR) which was certified by the City Counc Section 15164 and RECOMMEND that the City Coi APPROVE General Plan Amendment 09.01. Vote Resulted in: Yes: No: Abstain: Absent: Community Development. Council Meeting of April 11 C. ZONE CHANG City parks to the de"signati1of-tt required by Stat+ Parcel Number 802, Alarcon, Eng, None None r Ruiz, to ADOPT\Resolution No. 10-03 e Program Environmental Impact Report 14, 2008, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines the environmental determination and i the vote`and stated that this item will be presented at the City this is a tentative date. He City of Rosemead proposes to change the zoning classification of eight (8) pace)-zoning designation. The proposed zone change will bring the zoning o consistency with,the City's existing General Plan goals and policies, as owing parks will be affected by this zone change: Angelus Park (Assessor Garvey Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, and ssessor Parcel Number: 5389-004-800), Klingerman Park (Assessor Parcel 282=022-271), Rosemead Parts (Assessor Parcel Number: 8592-018-902), Parcel Number: 5389-001-903), Triangle Park (Assessor Parcel Number: Park (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5288-005-800, 5288-005-801, 5288-005- 305, and 5288-005-806). ' Park and PC RESOLUTION.10.04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE.CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 10-01 AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 887, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF EIGHT (8) CITY PARKS TO THE O-S (OPEN SPACE) ZONING DESIGNATION. THE FOLLOWING PARKS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ZONE CHANGE: ANGELUS PARK (APN: 5283-032-903), GARVEY PARK (APNs: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, and 5287-020-904), GUESS PARK (APN: 5389-004-800), KLINGERMAN PARK (APNs: 5282022-270 and 5282-022-271), ROSEMEAD PARK (APN: 8592-018-902), SALLY TANNER PARK (APN: 5389-001-903), TRIANGLE PARK (APN: 5281-032-900), and ZAPOPAN PARK (APNs: 5288-005-800, 5288-005-801, 5288-005-802, 5288-005-804, 5288-005-805, and 5288-005-806). 9 RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10- 04, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 887, changing the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the 0-S (Open Space) zoning designation. Assistant Planner Trinh presented the staff report . Chairwoman Herrera asked the Commissioners if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if this was strictly a housekeeping matter. Staff replied this is correct. \ Commissioner Ruiz asked if the open space zone allow the City to request federal gi Staff replied yes it will. Chairwoman Herrera opened public hearing. Rick Loya stated that he has been a resident of Rosemead understand exactly what a zone change means.-He asked for City parks. He also gave a brief history of when the parks were to the community. He said please save our parks\~-~ Commissioner Ruiz stated he understands his co improve our parks. He also stated"w`e'will continue Commissioner Eng questioned if we are to get federal funding. Principal Planner Bermejd replied it is Todd (last"name not and his'wife'use the Nancy Eng stated we are not Chairwoman Herrera closed the public hearing. are just reclassifying it to apply for grants to improve the park. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded my Commissioner Hunter to ADOPT Resolution No. 10.04, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 887, changing the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the O-S (Open Space) zoning designation. Vote Resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None ars. He also stated that he does not of exactly what will be happening to the e expressed how important the parks are City to get federal funding to park or if we are just reclassifying the zone to be able as open space. of Rosemead, expressed concern with the zone change and stated that he \He said he wanted to make sure that this change will not affect them using 10 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRWOMAN & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng stated she attended a Gold Line Metro Meeting last Saturday with Traffic Commissioner Brian Lewin and told the Planning Commission it was regarding the initial review of environmental impacts of the project. Chairwoman Herrera stated she had attended a Gold Line Metro Meeting also. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER & STAFF Parking Concern at 3365 Walnut Grove Avenue Principal Planner Bermejo stated she wanted to give update on the parking concern at 3365 Walnut Grove Avenue. She said that Lt. Tim Murakami (Chief of Police) and Ray Rodriquez (Public Safety Supervisor) have been monitoring the location. She reported that at this time they have seen aparking violations\SShe also stated Code Enforcement is still monitoring this site. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ATTEST: / Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 15, 2010. 11 Exhibit "G" Table 2-2 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Currespuu(lilig EXisting Zone General Plan Land Use Categorv Districts (1) LDR 1A)wDensitvResldentlal R1 P-D \IDR Medium Density Rcsidentiel R 2 P-D R-i HDR Iligh DCnsit\' Rcsideullal P-O D-0 C1 PD C Convncrcial C-i P CBD D-O CBD P MRC \4ixed-Use- RC-NI D-O Rcsidcnti;&Commurciai P-D \r-\1 \$iSed-Use- CBD P NIHRC High Du1sitP RCM D-O Rcsidential/Commercial P-D V-1M CI-kl D-O Mic i\iized-Use-LndustriallCornn'ercial P-D V-\4 P C-3 P-D 0111 Office/Light Industrial P-O D-O i\11-1 I Publichaclltttes All /onus OS Open Space?:Natural Resources 'O-S CHN,I Ccmetcr, O 5, (1) This table compares the General Plan land use categories with the existing zoning districts and overlay districts. It is anticipated that the Zeroing Ordinance will be updated and these zoning districts, shn%%n here, may be changed. Note: