CC - Item 6B - Municipal Code Amendment 09-03 - Chapter 17.12 of Title 17 relating to the Amortization of Nonconforming Poulty Slaughter BusinessesROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 23, 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 March 1, 2010, the Planning Commission
considered the draft Ordinance and recommended approval of the draft Ordinance.
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 A 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
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.
ITIM NO. - -
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA:
City Council Meeting
March 23, 2010
Page 2 of 5
ANALYSIS
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 Staff
Report and minutes of the December 7, 2009, Planning Commission meeting are
attached as Exhibit B and C, respectively.
The City Council conducted a public hearing on the item on January 26, 2010. At that
time it was discovered that the San Gabriel Valley 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. The minutes of the City Council meeting are attached as Exhibit D. The
Planning Commission subsequently held a properly noticed public hearing on March 1,
2010. At this hearing the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft
ordinance with a three year amortization period commencing from the effective date of
the Ordinance. The Commission opted not to include any language which would have
provided for an extension of the amortization period. The Staff Report and minutes of
the March 1, 2010, Planning Commission meeting are attached as Exhibit E and F,
respectively.
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. As stated above, the
consensus of the Planning Commission at its March 1, 2010 hearing was that a three
(3) year amortization period would be appropriate.
Potential Extension Language
Recognizing that amortization of poultry slaughtering businesses may include aspects
not immediately apparent, at the January 26, 2010 City Council hearing, the City
Attorney offered to the City Council a procedure which could be added to the draft
amortization ordinance 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:
City Council Meeting
March 23, 2010
Page 3 of 5
"C. Extension application. The owner of a legal nonconforming poultry
slaughtering business or the owner of the property upon which such use
exists, may file an application with the Community Development Director for
an extension of the amortization period in accordance with the following
procedures:
1. The application must be filed at least 180 days prior to the
expiration of the amortization period established in subsection A.
The filing fee for the application will be the same as that for a
variance as established by the City Council.
2. The application must state the additional length of time requested
for the amortization and the grounds for requesting such an
extension of time including but not necessarily limited to information
relevant to the criteria set forth in subsection D.
3. Within 30 calendar days following the receipt of a complete
application, the Community Development Director shall set the
matter for a hearing.
D. Decision on extension application. The City Council will hold a public
hearing at which time all evidence and testimony regarding the request for an
extension of the amortization period will be considered. The burden will be on
the applicant to establish that the extension should be granted. 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 November 16, 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.
City Council Meeting
March 23, 2010
Page 4 of 5
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 1094.5."
As described above, if the City Council were to include the 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
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 (Exhibit H).
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
City Council Meeting
March 23, 2010
Paoe 5 of 5
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). Additionally, notice was
mailed to the owner of Cal Poultry and all property owners within five-hundred feet of
the property occupied by Cal Poultry at 8932 Garvey Avenue.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
~GL~L
Paul Garry n~
Senior Planner Community Development Director
Exhibits:
A. Draft Ordinance No. 883
B. Planning Commission Staff Report from December 7, 2009
C Planning Commission Minutes from December 7, 2009
D. City Council Meeting Minutes from January 26, 2010
E. Planning Commission Staff Report from March 1, 2010
F Planning Commission Minutes from March 1, 2010
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-05
H. Initial Study & Negative Declaration
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 23, 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 March 1, 2010, the Planning Commission
considered the draft Ordinance and recommended approval of the draft Ordinance.
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 A 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
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.
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA:
City Council Meeting
March 23, 2010
Page 2 of 5
ANALYSIS
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 Staff
Report and minutes of the December 7, 2009, Planning Commission meeting are
attached as Exhibit B and C, respectively.
The City Council conducted a public hearing on the item on January 26, 2010. At that
time it was discovered that the San Gabriel Valley 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. The minutes of the City Council meeting are attached as Exhibit D. The
Planning Commission subsequently held a properly noticed public hearing on March 1,
2010. At this hearing the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft
ordinance with a three year amortization period commencing from the effective date of
the Ordinance. The Commission opted not to include any language which would have
provided for an extension of the amortization period. The Staff Report and minutes of
the March 1, 2010, Planning Commission meeting are attached as Exhibit E and F,
respectively.
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. As stated above, the
consensus of the Planning Commission at its March 1, 2010 hearing was that a three
(3) year amortization period would be appropriate.
Potential Extension Language
Recognizing that amortization of poultry slaughtering businesses may include aspects
not immediately apparent, at the January 26, 2010 City Council hearing, the City
Attorney offered to the City Council a procedure which could be added to the draft
amortization ordinance 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:
City Council Meeting
March 23, 2010
Page 3 of 5
"C. Extension application. The owner of a legal nonconforming poultry
slaughtering business or the owner of the property upon which such use
exists, may file an application with the Community Development Director for
an extension of the amortization period in accordance with the following
procedures:
1. The application must be filed at least 180 days prior to the
expiration of the amortization period established in subsection A.
The filing fee for the application will be the same as that for a
variance as established by the City Council.
2. The application must state the additional length of time requested
for the amortization and the grounds for requesting such an
extension of time including but not necessarily limited to information
relevant to the criteria set forth in subsection D.
3. Within 30 calendar days following the receipt of a complete
application, the Community Development Director shall set the
matter for a hearing.
D. Decision on extension application. The City Council will hold a public
hearing at which time all evidence and testimony regarding the request for an
extension of the amortization period will be considered. The burden will be on
the applicant to establish that the extension should be granted. 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 November 16, 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.
City Council Meeting
March 23, 2010
Paae 4 of 5
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 1094.5."
As described above, if the City Council were to include the 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
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 (Exhibit H).
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
City Council Meeting
March 23, 2010
Pace 5 of 5
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). Additionally, notice was
mailed to the owner of Cal Poultry and all property owners within five-hundred feet of
the property occupied by Cal Poultry at 8932 Garvey Avenue.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Paul Garry Stan Wong
Senior Planner Community Development Director
Exhibits:
A. Draft Ordinance No. 883
B. Planning Commission Staff Report from December 7, 2009
C Planning Commission Minutes from December 7, 2009
D. City Council Meeting Minutes from January 26, 2010
E. Planning Commission Staff Report from March 1, 2010
F Planning Commission Minutes from March 1, 2010
G. Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-05
H. Initial Study & Negative Declaration
ORDINANCE NO. 883
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY
SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) On May 14, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 683, which eliminated
poultry and rabbit slaughter as permitted uses within the M-1 zone of the City.
(b) Pursuant to Rosemead Municipal Code 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 H1 N1 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
LA #4843-6862-0292 v1 -1- EXHIBIT A
any city ordinance or any statute of the State of California regarding public nuisances,
health and safety or zoning.
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 Nonconforminq Poultry 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- EXHIBIT A
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 #4843-6862-0292 v1 -3- EXHIBIT A
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).
EXHIBIT B
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
($5001month 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
EXHIBIT B
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-CUT7SMOG) 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.
EXHIBIT B
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).
Sut~mi
Bria ' eki
1~
Community Development Director
Exhibits:
-A-----sraR-C~r~iaance-N8.883--~
-$-'--i'tarlRlflg~6BmmiSS.innRacnlr~riAp~y9 Q~~.
t+ar}-
EXHIBIT B
Minutes of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 7, 2009
The regular meeting of the Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairwoman Herrera at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard,
Rosemead, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Ruiz
INVOCATION - Commissioner Hunter
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: Commissioners Eng, Hunter, Ruiz, Vice-
Chairman Alarcon, Chairwoman Herrera
OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Greg Murphy, Community Development Director
Saeki, Principal Planner Bermejo, Senior Planner Garry, Assistant Planner Trinh,
Commission Secretary Lockwood
1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS
Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes - November 16, 2009
Commissioner Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eng, to approve
Minutes of November 16, 2009 as presented.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-04 - AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR ANY
DWELLING DEVELOPED WITH A LIVING AREA EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING
TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (2,500) SQUARE FEET IN THE R-1
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)
ZONES - Municipal Code Amendment 09-04 is a City initiated amendment
that proposes to amend the Zoning Ordinance to require a Design Review
entitlement application for any dwelling unit developed with a total living
EXHIBIT C
area equal to or exceeding two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet in
R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones.
Currently a Conditional Use Permit is required for such dwellings that equal
or exceed 2,500 square feet.
PC RESOLUTION 09-24- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE
ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR ANY
DWELLING WITH A DEVELOPED LIVING AREA EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING
TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (2,500) SQUARE FEET IN R-1 (SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) ZONES.
Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT
Resolution No. 09-24 (Attachment B), a resolution recommending that the
City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 886 (Attachment C), modifying the
Zoning Ordinance with respect to Design Review requirements in the R-1
(Single Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones.
Senior Planner Garry presented staff report.
Commissioner Eng questioned staff if Municipal Code Amendment 09-04 will require
property owners to do both a Conditional Use Permit and a Design Review.
Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the Conditional Use Permit process would be
eliminated and replaced with a Design Review requirement.
Commissioner Eng asked staff how long the Design Review process would take.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the normal process is one to three months.
Commissioner Eng questioned staff what will happen to Ordinance No. 876.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that this new ordinance would take its place with
respect to the review procedures for large home development.
Commissioner Eng requested clarification section 10, on page 4. of the ordinance.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that this section refers to 17.124 of the Rosemead
Municipal Code, which covers general application procedures for entitlement
applications.
Commissioner Hunter questioned staff if there are any ordinances that restrict the
building of mini-mansions.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that each Design Review application will have to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission. She also stated that each application will have
to comply with the City's development standards.
Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff if certain architectural styles have been established
for residential development. He stated that we have to set a standard so new homes are
EXHIBIT C
compatible with the surrounding homes in the neighborhood
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the Design Review guidelines have been
established, and that homeowners are encouraged to design their homes so that they
blend in with the surrounding homes in neighborhood.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated we have not seen too many Conditional Use
Permits since 2007.
Commissioner Ruiz stated with 2,500 square feet there are still a lot of options and it
is still possible to build a beautiful home.
Chairwoman Herrera stated we will now open the Public Hearing and questioned if there
was anyone in favor.
None
Chairwoman Herrera questioned if there was anyone against.
None
Chairwoman Herrera closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chairman Alarcon, to
ADOPT Resolution No. 09-24 (Attachment B), a resolution recommending that the
City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 886 (Attachment C), modifying the Zoning
Ordinance with respect to Design Review requirements in the R-1 (Single Family
Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
B. DESIGN REVIEW 00-81 (MODIFICATION) - Rosemead Place, LLC has
submitted an application to modify Design Review 00-81, requesting to
amend the existing master sign program for Rosemead Place Shopping
Center, located at 3506-3684 Rosemead Boulevard in the C3-D (Medium
Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone.
PC RESOLUTION 09-25- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 00-81 (MODIFICATION), TO
AMEND THE EXISTING MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR ROSEMEAD PLACE
SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED AT 3506-3684 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD IN
THE C3-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE
(APNS: 8594-023-034, 042, 044, & 045).
Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
EXHIBIT C
APPROVE Design Review 00-81 (Modification) for a period of one (1) year
and adopt Resolution 09-25, subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit "B"
attached hereto.
Assistant Planner Trinh presented staff report.
Commissioner Eng questioned staff if the lettering style is changing at all under the
strategic plan.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated no, there is not a specific font outlined in the master
sign program.
Community Development Director Saeki questioned Commissioner Eng if you are asking
about the strategic plan that was just approved. He stated that there is no specific
mention of a font for signs. He also stated the overall objective of the strategic plan is to
create a cohesive environment.
Commissioner Eng questioned staff in regards to traffic. She asked if there are any
obstruction concerns with the directional signs.
Principal Planner Bermejo replied no.
Commissioner Eng questioned staff what lifestyle signs are.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated it is a new type of sign that uses photographs, which
will be placed in designated areas on Building B. She also stated that the signage will
be photographic images of people, holiday's, and seasons. She also stated that there
are Conditions of Approval that have been added so that no off -site advertisement is
allowed on lifestyle sign.
Commissioner Eng requested clarification on Condition of Approval No. 3. She stated
that the approval period was for one year, and asked if it should be for six months.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that a Condition of Use Permit has a six month period
but provisions for Design Reviews are for one year.
Chairwoman Herrera opened the Public Hearing and invited applicant to podium.
Catherine Distefano, representing Rosemead Place, stated that the murals proposed on
Building B are for curb appeal. She stated that the images will display holiday decor
which will be visible from the 1 -10 Freeway, and that the use of the imagery will get
people to stop and shop. She also stated the monument signs will be renovated with
colors to match the buildings onsite.
Commissioner Eng questioned applicant to when she anticipates starting upgrades.
Catherine Distefano stated that she is ready to start now.
Commissioner Hunter thanked Catherine Distefano for doing this project and stated it
will look very nice.
EXHIBIT C
Chairwoman Herrera asked if there anyone in favor of this project
Brian Lewin stated that he likes signs updated and hopes that Mayumba is included in
the new sign program. He also stated that he has two reservations about the project.
He also questioned if the signs have been evaluated for visibility issues in regards to
placement and size, since they are located near entrances.
Principal Planner stated the signs were reviewed by the City's architectural review
committee, and staff believes they will not create any issues.
Brian Lewin stated he is not totally convinced with the lifestyle signage, and stated that
people on the 1-10 Freeway do not need a visual distraction. He also asked for
clarification as to if the signs were static or consisted of changing images.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated they will be images that do not change, and that the
applicant will need to come in and submit a new plan to put up a new image.
Commissioner Ruiz stated they will be static signs with images that can be changed with
seasons.
Chairwoman Herrera questioned if there was anyone against.
None
Chairwoman Herrera closed the Public Hearing.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Chairwoman Herrera to
APPROVE Design Review 00-81 (Modification) for a period of one (1) year and
adopt Resolution 09-25, subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit "B".
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
C. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-03 - AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 OF
TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER
BUSINESSES - The City of Rosemead is proposing to amend Chapter 17.12
of the Rosemead Municipal Code relating to the amortization of
nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses in the City (Ordinance No.883 -
Exhibit A). Under the current code, poultry slaughter is not a permitted use.
However, poultry slaughter businesses commenced prior to May 14, 1991
which have continued in existence since that time may continue to exist, so
long as they do not expand. The proposed amendment requires that all
nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses cease operation effective
December 31, 2012.
EXHIBIT C
PC RESOLUTION 09-23 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-
03 AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AMORATIZATION OF
NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES
Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT
Resolution No. 09-23, a resolution recommending that the City Council
APPROVE the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Ordinance No. 883,
modifying the zoning code with respect to the amortization of poultry
slaughter businesses.
Community Development Director Saeki presented staff report
Commissioner Hunter questioned staff why this business is still operating after all these
years with all the violations this business has had.
Community Development Director Saeki stated that the City of Rosemead has done all
that they can do to bring Cal Poultry into compliance, and when other agencies and
entities investigated they did not warrant shutting the business down. He also stated
that City Attorney Murphy would be able to offer a legal perspective.
City Attorney Murphy stated that he did not have much more to add, and also stated
that when other bodies were given jurisdiction and took action, they did not recommend
or request that the City take any further action, and then there is not much the City can
do. He also stated that when the State or County states that the problems have
been solved, then the City considers it solved. He also stated that city staff has looked
at it and thinks abatement is the right thing to do at this time, so as to resolve an on
going problem.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated the City has done what it can and that the business has
had enough time to recoup their investments, and he feels three years is too long and he
recommends it be one year and he likes the ordinance, but he would like it changed
to 2010.
Commissioner Hunter stated she agrees with Vice-Chairman Alarcon and feels that
three years is too long. She also questioned staff if it takes that long for a business to
re-establish themselves.
Brian Saeki stated that amortization will allow the business to recuperate what they have
invested into the City. He also said that the legal staff recommended that three years
was a fair amount of time for the business to relocate and get re-established. He also
stated that if the Planning Commission would like to recommend to the City Council
a one year amortization that would be fine, and he also added that this was not
recommended by our City Attorney.
Commissioner Hunter questioned staff if in three years will they continue to do what they
are doing now for another three years.
EXHIBIT C
Community Development Director Saeki stated that whatever day this amortization
comes into effect, they will still be required to fix all the problems they have today, if they
still want to remain in business. He also stated that after December 31, 2012, as
proposed in this ordinance, they will not be able to operate in the City of Rosemead.
Commissioner Eng questioned staff if the business owner was present tonight.
Community Development Director Saeki replied no.
Commissioner Eng stated that with the chronology of events that staff presented, there
does not seem to appear consistent productive dialog between the City and the
business. She also stated the business was granted a Certificate of Occupancy in 1991
and then five months afterwards we adopted an ordinance to remove that use, but they
were permitted to operate for eight years. She also stated in 1997 they entered into an
Impact Agreement and paid eighteen thousand dollars to address traffic and parking
concerns. She also stated that the business continued to operate until 2006 that they
were cited for code violations. She also stated that there has been inconsistency with
dealing with this business and there are numerous code violations that still need to be
resolved so that this business can still operate. She stated we are all good neighbors
and a community that needs to work together. She stated she visited the business site
on Sunday around 2:00 p.m., and without talking to anyone she walked around the site
and surrounding property. She noted the various land uses surrounding the business to
be mostly industrial or commercial and described the inside the business. She said
there were chickens being sold at the address of 8932, no chickens were being sold at
8942, there was a good flow of customers of diversity, and six to eight employees
working. She stated that it is a functional business that employs people and that is
something we need to consider in this economy. She also stated that there was an
unpleasant odor that was very apparent in front of the business, but did not notice it as
much while walking along the surrounding area. She also stated that odors cannot be
blocked, and they are worse during the summer. She concluded by stating that it is an
established business, it is employing people, it is providing a service for the community,
it provides getting fresh poultry without going far. She asked staff where the other fresh
poultry businesses are located that were stated in the staff report.
Community Development Director Saeki stated that staff did a search to find similar
types of uses in the surrounding area and found there are several in Los Angeles; one or
two in the El Monte/South El Monte area; and about half a dozen within a five mile
radius. He also stated he contacted El Monte and South El Monte, and found that they
are in the same situation as Rosemead regarding Cal Poultry, so they will not be cities
considered for relocation. He said that there are other areas around Rosemead that will
allow these types of businesses.
Commissioner Ruiz stated that he would like to agree with Commissioner Alarcon and
Commissioner Hunter. He also stated that while he served on the Traffic Commission
with Commissioner Alarcon, and dealt with some of the traffic issues that have
been discussed, in reality they never were resolved. He also stated that he keeps in
touch with some of the business owners in that neighborhood, that the business is still
taking advantage of the City, and violations are still taking place. He said he feels we
need to put a stop to the business and feels that this is not a business for this
community. He also stated that this business is growing and flourishing, and it is time to
EXHIBIT C
have it relocated. He said he agrees that it does offer jobs and helps the economy, but
he feels the business will not try to fix anything and will continue to make violations. He
also questioned City Attorney Murphy if it was feasible to change the deadline to 2010,
and asked about the ramifications if the Commission proposes that time frame.
City Attorney Murphy stated that the Planning Commission can recommend anything
that they want to the Council, and if the Commission feels one year is proper then the
Commission can make that recommendation. He also stated it will be much easier for
the Council to abate this non-conforming use to look at that three year period and to say
that three year period allows enough time for actual write off of the investment made for
this company, as it shows that the city understands the need to wind the business down
in this location and then to move it out. He also states the three year period based on
their research and staffs research, and it is much more defensible if ultimately the
business owner wants to try to challenge the city. He also stated we looked into what is
the best legally and most fair way to abate the non-conforming use and what is the best
position for the City to be in when the drop dead date does come. He also stated that is
why we advised the City on the three year date period and not the one year period that
is in the interest of the Commission. He also said, the Planning Commission can make
the recommendation to the Council, if they think it is appropriate.
Commissioner Ruiz questioned Vice-Chairman Alarcon how he felt about this.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that regardless of one year or three years he feels the
business will fight the City and would still like to recommend it to be one year. He also
stated that we are working to make the City a nice community and that this business
does not fit into this community anymore.
Commissioner Ruiz stated he agrees with Vice-Chairman Alarcon and states we should
like to make an amendment to make it 2010 and see what happens.
Commissioner Eng asked staff what is the designated use for this area, the current
zoning classification, and questioned what type of tools the City has to effectively deal
with legal non-conforming uses. She also gave a description of how the County of Los
Angeles Regional Planning Board handles a legal-non conforming use and stated she
thought is was an effective tool.
Community Development Director Saeki replied that the current general plan designation
is mixed use and the underlying zone designation is M-1 (Light Industrial). He said that
the City's code currently has an amortization section in it, but there is no due process or
specific language.
Commissioner Eng stated that she would like to make a recommendation during
"Matters of the Commissioners" recommending staff to have some sort of non-
conforming use guideline policy in place so we can deal with issues like this in the future.
Commissioner Hunter questioned staff to why the word legalized slaughter house is
used in the staff report.
Community Development Director Saeki questioned Commissioner Hunter on what
pages.
EXHIBIT C
Commissioner Hunter stated that it is on different pages, and they keep using the word
legalized, like it is legal.
Community Development Director Saeki stated that right now it is a non-permitted use in
the City and requested City Attorney Murphy to give legal explanation.
City Attorney Murphy stated that it is a legal use but it is one that is not permitted by the
municipal code. He also stated that cities in setting up on how they want their city to
operate can allow certain things and disallow others, a legal non-conforming use means
its use is non-conforming to your code but is still something that is ok with the law in
general. He also stated that when they say it is a legal slaughter house, it is one that is
operating legally as a slaughter house within Los Angeles County, but it is not in
compliance with Rosemead's City Code, and that is why it would be a legal slaughter
house, as opposed to one that is setup in someone's back yard and operating
totally illegally.
Commissioner Hunter asked staff what is the legal recourse if we change this to one
year instead of three, and if there is a possibly of a lawsuit for a certain amount of
money.
Community Development Saeki stated that there was no specific amount mentioned,
and the overall consensus was that three years was more legally defensible and when
you have a one year amortization period then you become more open to litigation. He
also stated the likeliness of this business suing the City is pretty good.
Commissioner Hunter stated that three years is too long, and if we change it to one
year, the business may take the City to court and it will then take longer than three
years.
Community Development Director Saeki stated that if it the amortization was changed to
one year, and if the business takes the City to court and wins, we are done. He also
stated if the City loses then we have to start this process again and they could be
awarded their legal fees. He also stated that staff is working with the property owner to
help them find a new location and one year is not enough time to get everything done
properly.
Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff if two years would be better.
Community Development Director Saeki stated one year is fine, two years would be
better, but three years is what is recommended.
Chairwoman Herrera questioned staff if the business will still have to comply with City
codes and ordinances whether it is one, two, or three years. She also asked how the
codes will be enforced.
Community Development Director Saeki stated yes, they will have to comply with codes,
and our Code Enforcement will enforce through litigation if needed.
Chairwoman Herrera opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing
to speak in favor of this item.
EXHIBIT C
Ralph Herrera stated that this business has demonstrated it is not very willing to comply
with the ordinances, and if you give them three years they have no reason to comply.
He also stated that he can see a three year battle, and it is possible to give them one
year with a review not to exceed three years to build a case, in case you go to court.
Chairwoman Herrera questioned if there was anyone else in favor or anyone against this
item.
None
Chairwoman Herrera closed the Public Hearing
Commissioner Eng stated she agrees with everyone and we are trying to keep
Rosemead up to standards. She also stated that shutting down businesses in this case
is not what we should be doing and stated that she would like to explore other options.
Commissioner Ruiz stated this business has been given every opportunity to comply and
we are not in the business to shut businesses down, but we are here for the community
and we should vote on something tonight.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that he would like to make a motion to accept the
ordinance that has been written by staff with the exception that the amortization period
be for one year, not three, ending in 2010 instead of 2012.
City Attorney Murphy stated that he would like clarify the motion which is section two of
the ordinance where it says Section 17.12.105, Sub-Section A. Amortization period,
should be read that, "After December 31, 2010, no person may cause, allow, or permit
the continued use." He asked if that is that correct.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that yes that is his motion.
Commissioner Hunter stated that she is concerned, and the business should be
given three years, but limits should be set within the first year stating that they must
comply with all the City ordinances and codes.
Community Development Director Saeki stated that it will be better for the Planning
Commission to recommend a date certain.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to
ADOPT Resolution No. 09-23, a resolution recommending that the City Council
APPROVE the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Ordinance No. 883, modifying the
zoning code with respect to the amortization of poultry slaughter businesses, and
to include amending the year from 2012 to 2010.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Alarcon, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz
No: None
Abstain: Commissioner Eng
Absent: None
10
EXHIBIT C
i
i
5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRWOMAN & COMMISSIONERS
None
Vice-Chairman Alarcon asked staff about the status of the Fresh & Easy market.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated they are currently in Plan Check and moving forward.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon questioned staff if Howards was going to move into the Barr
Lumber property.
Community Development Director Saeki stated no, that the property is in escrow right
now.
Commissioner Eng recommended that staff find a tool or guidelines to effectively deal
with legal non-conforming uses for businesses that want to continue to operate when the
use is eliminated.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER & STAFF
None
7. ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 21, 2009, at 7:00
p.m.
Meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
C
A 444t44. .
D na Herrera
Chairwoman
ATT T: nn
Rachel Lockwood,
Commission Secretary
11
EXHIBIT C
I I
Minutes of the
JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
January 26, 2010
The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission was called to
order by Mayor Clark at 6:02 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley
Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member/Commissioner Ly
INVOCATION: Mayor/Chairwoman Clark
PRESENT: Mayor/Chairwoman Clark, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chairman Taylor, Council Member/Commissioner
Armenia, Council Member/Commissioner Low, and Council Member/Commissioner Ly.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth, Interim City Attorney Montes,
Community Development Director Wong, Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation
Montgomery-Scott, Economic Development Administrator Ramirez, Public Affairs Manager Flores, Deputy
Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda
1. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
2. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Claims and Demands
Resolution No. 2010 - 06
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2010 - 06 for payment of Commission
expenditures in the amount of $14,617.00 demand nos. 11221 through 11224.
Comm issioner/Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Commissioner/Council
Member Steven Ly to approve Commission Consent Calendar. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Armenia, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 1 of 17
EXHIBIT D
3. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF
A. Reinstatement of Eminent Domain Authority Over Non-Residential Properties in
Redevelopment Project Area No.1
The Commission will consider the engagement of a consulting firm, GRC Associates, to initiate
the reinstatement of eminent domain authority for non-residential properties in Redevelopment
Project Area No. 1. Proposals have been solicited from professional consulting firms to do this
work. Based on its low cost bid and previous relevant experience, GRC Associates has been
selected to perform Redevelopment Plan Amendment work on this project.
Recommendation: That the Commission:
1. Authorize the Executive Director to execute a professional services agreement
with GRC Associates in the amount of $45,000 for the amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1.
2. Establish a contingency of approximately 10% of the contract amount to cover
potential unforeseen costs associated with the Redevelopment Plan
Amendment.
Economic Development Administrator Michelle Ramirez reviewed the staff report.
Council Member Polly Low asked why it took so long for the City to establish the tax increment collection if
the project was established in 1972. The tax increment collection was established in 1986.
Mrs. Ramirez responded that the City was allowed to collect the lax increment as soon as it was filed with the
County of Los Angeles. She added that in 1986 the limit of how much the City was going to collect in tax
increment was established.
Commissioner/Council Member Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner/Council
Member Sandra Armenta to approve Commission Consent Calendar. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly
No: Taylor
Abstain: None
Absent: None
City Attorney Joseph Monies asked that City Council recess to Closed Session regarding the listed item. Mr.
Monies announced that additionally subsequently to the posting of the agenda an item pertaining to initiation
of litigation had come up that needed to be discussed in Closed Session. He asked that Council vote to
include this item for discussion in Closed Session.
Commissioner/Council Member Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner/Council
Member Sandra Annenta to add the additional item to Closed Session. Vote resulted in:
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 2 of 17
EXHIBIT D
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None .
Abstain: None
Absent: None
City Council recessed to Closed Session at 6:10 p.m.
4. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference With Legal Counsel
1) Government Code 54956.9(a):
Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
Name of Case: Haro v. City of Rosemead
City Council
Meeting Agenda
The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 7:05 p.m. in the
Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ly
INVOCATION: Mayor Clark
PRESENT: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tern Taylor, Council Member Armenia, Council Member Low, and
Council Member Ly.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth, City Attorney Montes,
Community Development Director Wong, Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation
Montgomery-Scott, Economic Development Administrator Ramirez, Deputy Public Works Director Marcarello,
and City Clerk Molleda
Council. reconvened back from closed session at 7:05 p.m. City Attorney Joseph Monies announced that
there was no reportable action taken in Closed Session.
5. PRESENTATIONS
• Certificate of Recognition to Elizabeth Lyons for her participation in the USA Track and Field Junior
Olympics Cross Country National Championships.
Mayor Margaret Clark read the certificate of recognition to Elizabeth Lyons and added that she was very
proud of her and the fact that she is a Rosemead resident. The City Council took pictures with Ms. Lyons.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 3 of 17
EXHIBIT D
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Chuck Lyons - thanked the City of Rosemead for recognizing the youth; he announced that there is now a
link on the City's website called, "Celebrating Rosemead's Youth°. Mr. Lyons stated that perhaps in a future
Council meeting in the Council Chamber he can present a PowerPoint with pictures of the Reno race, which
was held during a blizzard. He added that the weather was about 25 degrees and there was about 2 feet of
snow on the ground; when the runners ran by there was snow on their chins, noses, eyelashes and
foreheads.
7. PUBLIC HEARING
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 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.
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.
Should the Council wish to modify the amortization period, or add any provision concerning an
application for extension of the amortization period, those changes would need to be
incorporated into any motion to introduce the Ordinance for first reading.
Recommendation: That the City Council determine whether to adopt an ordinance and any
modifications thereto; and, 9 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.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 4 of 17
EXHIBIT D
City Attorney Joseph Monies announced that the recommendation on the agenda needed to be revised.
Staff has discovered in reviewing the record in preparation for tonight's hearing that although notice of the
public hearing for the planning commission (when the planning commission saw this item) was sent to the
newspaper for some reason that notice wasn't actually published by the newspaper, consequently this matter
needs to be referred back to the planning commission. We recognize that will necessitate further public
hearings before the planning commission and then another public hearing before the City Council and we
also recognize that several people have come out to speak tonight; in light of that recognition we do not want
to discourage anybody who wants to speak this evening. But we do want to indicate to you that there will be
other opportunities to speak on this item, so you can either speak tonight or you can speak at one of the
subsequent nights that this is discussed or you can speak at all of those occasions if you want. If you speak
tonight you will not be prohibited from speaking again at a subsequent meeting. Public testimony will be
taken tonight and no action can be taken by the Council other than to continue the public hearing so that the
matter can go back to the planning commission. Our recommendation will be to open the hearing, take
testimony from whoever wants to give testimony this evening, and then take no further action other than to
continue the hearing to a date uncertain so we can re-notice this public hearing for the City Council after the
planning commission has had a chance to conduct their hearing. Additional, if the Council has any
modifications to the ordinance that they have before them this evening that you would d like the planning
commission to consider; the Council Members should give that direction to staff at the conclusion of this item
this evening. If there are any questions I'd be happy to answer them; otherwise staff has a brief staff report;
also given the number of speakers this evening there is a 3 minute speaking limit.
Mayor Margaret Clark asked Planning Commissioner Nancy Eng if she could translate what the attorney
had just stated because she wanted to make sure that everyone knew that Council would not be taking any
action tonight due to the glitch that occurred with the public hearing notice.
Mrs. Eng began to translate and asked Council Member Polly Low if she could continue translating.
Council Member Polly Low translated the statement in Cantonese.
Senior Planner Paul Gary reviewed the staff report.
Mayor Margaret Clark opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m.
Colin Lennard - Attorney representing Cal Poultry stated (the following statement is verbatim): I would like to
speak in a brief while and then introduce Dana Phu to make a short presentation as well as the next speaker.
We are very very disappointed that the City Council has chosen to essentially consider going ahead with this
ordinance. We're disappointed because we have made what we believe a very fair and reasonable offer to
the City Council; the offer specifically was that we would provide you with a list of order consultants and there
are consultants out there that deal specifically with odor control. That we would get that list to you, a number
of major firms, and that if you wanted to add or suggest which ones you wanted we would be willing to take
that. We also said that we would have the odor consultant prepare a report and a recommendation of
specific items that my clients needed to do to mitigatelprevent order. We would then provide that report back
to you, at which time you could make any reasonable changes you thought were necessary on behalf of the
city and that we would abide by them. We would then implement what the odor consultant recommended;
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 5 of 17
EXHIBIT D
we would hope that that would be done between 60 and 90 days. We also agree on a parallel track to sit
down with your city staff in connection with possible or potential relocation of the business; we understand
that the City Council has rejected that offer out of hand. We believe that you are really preventing our client
from addressing the real issue and the real issue is odor. We know that there been a series of other alleged
violations; there is no outstanding violation as of now. The 206 issue with respect to the wall and the
entrance between the suggested retail has now been fixed; there is no entrance there whatsoever. The
(inaudible) has been taken care of and the report to the planning commission by the staff referencing the
County Health and the violations there, our client has explained to the city on a number of occasions that the
County Health does not have any jurisdiction in this matter. In fact the agency that does has jurisdiction,
which the State Department of Food and Agriculture, which is out at that facility perhaps every day and at
least once a week, have never found any violations whatsoever. As I said before, my client has been
prevented from trying to correct these issues. In October of 2006, Mr. Quan Phu wrote a letter to the City
suggesting that, not suggesting, actually committing to putting in the necessary odor controls that would
mitigate the odor. Putting on a new roof, putting on a ventilation system; putting on a new cooling system and
also addressing the appearance of the property; those were rejected by the City. Rejected because of the
fact that that would enlarge the use of the lien. Non-conforming use ordinance which wasn't even in existence
because it didn't have due process clause in it so I don't see how that could have been rejected at that time.
In addition to it, after that was rejected, in 2008 my clients come before this City Council and suggested that
in order to provide the corrections of the necessary for the odor control that they be brought to specific use, in
other words, not being a non-conforming use anymore but being a committed use and then committing to
putting in the necessary odor controls, in fact, staff in a report to the planning commission, which approved
the idea, of taking them out of non-conformance status, was then recommended to the City Council that they
adopt that proposed ordinance allowing to put in the necessary odor controls and mitigate the one issue that
needed correction. In 2009, by the way I should add on the second reading of the ordinance the City Council
decided they would not adopt it, in 2009 what happens, the exact opposite, you get a staff report that was
360 degrees the opposite of the original staff report that recommended that the City put my clients out of
business. Then it goes to the City Planning Commission, the planning commission then adopts a one year
non-conformance use amortization period which in no way would stand up before any court. It comes back
before this City Council with a staff report again 360 degrees different than that which the staff report was in
2008. In other words, you had my client on an absolute rollercoaster. You've had them on a rollercoaster from
approving to disapproving; you've not allowed them to make the necessary changes that would correct the
problem and now you take up this ordinance, which I suggest to you, will not solve any issue whatsoever.
Because I don't think any of you can expect my client, if you adopt this ordinance, to expend an enormous
amount of money in capital in correcting the odor problem when you are going to put them out of business in
3 years. No sensible business person is going to do that; the only thing that this ordinance is going to do, if in
fact you adopt it, is to commit the City to a very expensive and lengthy piece of litigation. Which I don't
believe is in the interest of the City or in the interest of the community. It's really incredible in these difficult
economic times and inconceivable that the City would terminate a successful ongoing business causing all of
its employees to become all of a sudden unemployed without at least finding out whether in fact the business
can operate, correct the odor problem, and become and remain part of this business community, which it has
done since 1990. That's a long time to be in this community and it's a long time until 2006 until everything
was exploding in terms of the alleged violations. I would suggest let Mr. and Mrs. Phu have an opportunity to
correct the problem and therefore save their business and become part of this community again, thank you.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 6 of 17
EXHIBIT D
Dana Phu - owner of Cal Poultry stated she wanted to share a little bit of her story with them; her husband
and she came to the U.S. in 1982, they came to the City of Rosemead and they both attended the Rosemead
School District. She stated that the main reason why they started this business was because their family
throughout two thousand five hundred years they have to have once a year a uniform chicken; a wholesome
chicken with feet and head attached. That represents a unity in the family just like Thanksgiving time where
there is a turkey. She added that when they came here they couldn't find that kind of service to their people,
their community, and their religion. Mrs. Phu added that throughout the years they have had a lot of support
from the community that tells them that this is what they need because it symbolizes unity to family. She
explained that they employed 15 people, of which some, have been with them for more than 10 years and if
Cal Poultry is closed it is going to be very difficult for them to find another job due to the economic times.
Mrs. Phu stated that a lot of her customers were concerned that the business would be closed because it is
part of their culture, their family, and their unity. She stated that since 2006 they have been submitting a lot
of requests to let them fix the problems but they have been rejected.
Council Member Steven Ly stated that he was very offended that there were signs in the audience that say,
"minority hater; he stated he was not a minority hater but an American that was here to defend the residents
of Rosemead and the City of Rosemead.
Mrs. Phu stated that those signs were from the community and not from her.
Mayor Margaret Clark stated that there would be no more applause during the meeting. She added that the
hearing could be discontinued because no action would be taken tonight and it would be coming back again.
She asked that the audience be respectful to the various speakers and listen without any applause or booing.
Phyllis Turn - read two paragraphs of city staff reports; the first one was from the staff report when Cal
Poultry was first coming in to the City; she then read a paragraph of an impact agreement signed by Mr. Phu.
Mrs. Tury stated that the business' parking lot is not only a parking lot but also a loading dock. She stated
that 3 % years ago her neighbors and she started complaining because they couldn't stand the odor; she
added that the odor was not the only issue. She stated that the traffic backs up on Garvey and cars try to go
around the cars that are waiting to turn into the parking lot that is being used to unload chickens. She stated
that she has given a lot of pictures over the last few months; she addressed a specific one that showed two
squashed chickens laying on the sidewalk, which is accessible to any child walking by. Mrs. Tury stated that
the chickens laid there for 2 days and on the 31d day her friend took a picture of them. She then addressed a
second picture that showed live chickens in cages with the exception of one dead one. Mrs. Tury added that
they were not trying to be unreasonable but that there were certainly problems, which they were complaining
about. Mrs. Tury held up pictures for the audience to see.
Adolfo Ponce - stated that his main concern was that they were dealing with an owner of a business that
has total disregard for the community; the reason why they are addressing this issue now is because they
brought it to the forefront. He stated that it has taken time for them to actually get to speak on this item,
violation after violation, and added that they were not being unreasonable Mr. Ponce stated that business are
asked to leave certain cities because they are nuisance to that community; they become and outgrow that
facility. He stated it was sad that the owner had to bring up ethnicity and religion; he said he was a minority
and he asked that Council please concentrate on the real issue, which is that the owner has been violating
the residents' right for a healthy life in this community.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 7 of 17
EXHIBIT D
Marisa Lam - stated that for as long as she has lived, she and her family have been a loyal customer of Cal
Poultry because they have provided their family to put a fresh poultry on their table. She added that as a
practice their family would offer the sacrifice of the poultry to worship their ancestors as a sign of respect.
Ms. Lam added that if anything happened to Cal Poultry her family would be greatly affected and that she
was disappointed to hear that Council would not be giving the business an opportunity to clean up their
facilities.
Ken Vona - stated that he believed he lived in a world where everyone tries to change who you are and that
the best thing was to stay true to yourself. Mr. Vong stated that he has lived in Rosemead for 5 or 6 years
and felt that the City was not adapting to its people but felt that as the minority they had to adapt to
Rosemead. He stated that he knew times were rough and that shutting down a business that has been in
Rosemead for over 20 years was going to give a wrong message to kids; that dreams come true but they fall
apart. He added that he was very disappointed that the City of Rosemead was not recognizing a business
that caters to the people of Rosemead.
San Voona - stated that based on the economics he hears in the federal government and the state
government are trying to keep small business in place and hearing that the City was trying to do the opposite
of that was daunting to him. He added that Cal Poultry paid their taxes and based on what their attorney had
stated they have attempted to address the odor issue. Mr. Voong added that he did not think that the city
was in the same order of the federal and state government and that shutting down a small business is not
going to do a service to the community.
Vince Voona - stated that America was based on democracy; he added that Cal Poultry was the only place
in Rosemead where he could get fresh chicken. He asked if they were willing to fix the odor then why are
they not being allowed to do so and asked what the accomplishment would be by closing down the business.
Mr. Voong stated that people talked about smell and that Los Angeles was basically polluted but they are
able to fix the problem. He stated that if someone was paying taxes and providing services to the community
and are willing to make changes but they are not being allowed to make a change, that is not justice.
Mayor Margaret Clark stated there would be no applause and if it continued the public hearing would end.
Council Member Polly Low translated the statement.
Sandy Ho - stated that everyone is here for the American dream to build their life for their families. She
stated that all the people here were part of a family; what they do is have dinner and have chickens, chickens
and heads and feet. She stated that her grandparents and ancestors prefer the head and feet of the chickens
and they couldn't get that in an Albertson's or other grocery stores. She stated that they were going to lose
part of their culture because some people didn't like the heads and feet. She stated that when her
grandparents died she hoped to have a chicken with the head and feet for them; she added that as part of
their culture during Asian holidays they would place a whole chicken on a altar as part of an offering.
Lam Bui - stated his family and his in-laws have visited Cal Poultry since they opened; he stated this was a
disservice to the surrounding cities because there are no other businesses around here that sell these
products and provide these services to the community. He stated that the City can certainly do something
here to sanitize the Cal Poultry business and he urged the City to allow the business to stay in Rosemead
and find a solution for everyone.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010 EXHIBIT D
Page 8 of 17
Justin Lee - stated that the significance of this store was not only that they provided a rare product but for
the Asian community his fresh poultry was part of his culture, a tradition, and part of religion. He stated that
shutting down a small business was not the solution in a very slow economy; the violations can easily be
fixed and if we know this why don't we let them fix it. He added that what was at stake here was a family run
business that was being run out for providing a valuable product that serves the community. He reiterated
that closing the business was not the solution and asked that they be allowed to solve that problem so that
they can strive within the community.
Vincent Lieu - stated he supported Cal Poultry and hoped that the Council work with the Cal Poultry owner
to not close them down; this can cause a lawsuit and cost the City a lot of money.
Joyce Limones - stated she was Indian-American and you didn't see her crying about her culture; she said
her mother was full blooded and she had come to Rosemead to adapt to the world and adapt to changes.
she stated she knew Americans were trying to protect the safety of health and trying to keep the City clean,
it's not about tradition. She stated that she and her mother have adapted to live happily. She added that she
remembered when there were farmers in Rosemead and it was full of farms but they had moved out because
this had become a city. She stated this was not about race but rather about health safety and that she would
like to see a solution for both sides.
Patricia Villaroez - stated that her family had moved to Rosemead in 1966 and her parents' dream was to
purchase a home that was on an M-1 zone (residential and light manufacture) and have a business in the
back and in 1977 they resurrected their business. She stated that around 1991 they suddenly woke up as if
they were living next to the 605 freeway; the area between Valley and the Pomona freeway where the duck
farm was and from there on woke up to that smell. She stated she appreciated everyone's issue but they
were not living next to this business and consequently their family life was impacted; they no longer could
have barbeques because the moment they went outside the smell was like if they lived next to a sewer plant.
She stated that she understood that the owner had a business that was well accepted in their culture;
however, instead of moving to Arcadia they should have stayed in Rosemead to fully understand the
ramifications the business was having with its neighbors.
Frank Yeh - Director of the Chinese Political Action committee stated that he knew Mr. Phu and he was not
only a businessman; he added that he did not understand why this business had become an issue after 20
years and did not think it was fair to close down his business when there are ways to mitigate these issues.
He stated that he suggested that Council find common grown and solutions and not lead the City into a
lawsuit; this will only cost the City money.
Brian Lewin - stated he had mixed feeling about this issue himself; he stated that as someone that worked
with in environmental field and on code matters he found Cal Poultry's violations disturbing, as well as the
odor issue. He stated that on the other hand Cal Poultry was a local thriving business and it serves many
Rosemead residents and people from the surrounding cities and contributes to the City's tax base. Mr. Lewin
stated that the problems needed to be addressed but sometimes it mattered how you did things or if you did
it. He stated that by passing this ordinance it would address most of the issue; however, it will make their
customers very unhappy, and may expose the City to an expensive lawsuit that it may or may not win. Mr.
Lewin stated that Council should be careful as to what message they would be sending if this ordinance is
approved because the City had not been very successful at attracting commercial developments for several
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 9 of 17
EXHIBIT D
decades. He stated that Council should develop a plan and if Cal Poultry could not comply with it then the
City should invoke amortization but that he thought the City should work with them.
Augie Gorbea - thanked the Mayor for allowing him to speak and thanked Council Member Ly for
recognizing that we have communities full of diversity. Mr. Gorvia stated that he has been a customer of Cal
Poultry for 7 years and that he was Puerto Rican and liked fresh chicken. He added that Cal Poultry has
served his community excellently for over 20 years and are willing to follow the City's requests; it doesn't
make sense to close a thriving business.
Julie Gentry - stated that thirty-three thousand Asians didn't strike her as being a minority; she added that
she was allowed to speak on this issue because there were a lot of freedoms, such as, freedom to speech,
freedom to vote, along with many other freedoms but that with that freedom came a lot of responsibility. She
added that we had a responsibility to be good neighbors and that this particular business had not been a
good neighbor. There been health and code violations after violations and her list only went back to 2003;
she added that the business had many opportunities to fix these issues and had not. She stated much of the
tragedy in Haiti could have been prevented if they had proper building codes.
Jean Hall - stated that the business has had many opportunities, just like it had been previously mentioned,
to take care of their non-conformance and we have been through many City leaders over the years and
sometimes it's okay but now we are at a different place. Mrs. Hall added that what everyone was there for
this night is to pass this item down because Council could not do anything at this time. She stated that this
had to do with the fact that a slaughter poultry business had no place in a density populated neighborhood
and that should be the only thing that should be discussed because this had nothing to do with people's
cultures or anything else. Mrs. Hall. stated that perhaps the Council could go through the process of exploring
other options and perhaps using their Redevelopment powers that are in their disposal.
Juan Nunez - stated that he understood that the poultry was used as part of people's religion and culture but
that the City was now in a different culture; he added that where he came from they used to kill the animals
and gut them out in their front yard and now here in Rosemead he doesn't do that because he has come into
a different culture. He added that he could not continue with his customs because they might offend other
people.
Linda Han - stated she knew the owners of Cal Poultry and she understood that the neighbors were
sensitive to the smell and asked if they could imagine working in it. She added that the people there worked
very hard and the issues were not personal but it was the way that the City had brought this forth. She stated
that her grandmother took the bus from El Monte to Rosemead to buy fresh chickens for religious reasons
and stated that taking away this business would obviously hurt other business is the area because they bring
business to other people.
Amy San - she stated that most of the people that were against this business was because of the odor but
she learned tonight that the business was denied to change that; it's not that they did not want to make those
changes to make it better. It's because they were not allowed to make it better.
Mayor Margaret Clark asked that the City Attorney address that issue.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 10 of 17
EXHIBIT D
City Attorney Joseph Montes stated that he thought the issue that was being raised here is that there was an
application submitted previously by the property owner for a zoning code amendment that would have
allowed this to be a permitted use. Currently it is not a permitted use at its present location, Cal Poultry, it is
not a permitted use at that location, they are a grandfathered use and what's known as a non-conforming
use. Under the City's non-conforming ordinance, a non-conforming business is not allowed to expand. In
order to make corrections to the building and address ventilation; the owner had previously indicated that
modifications to the building including raising the roof, would be necessary to address ventilation issues.
That would not be allowed under the City's present code and a zoning code amendment was brought forward
through the planning commission and the City Council that would have made that, the poultry slaughter
business a legal use or a permitted use so that they could expand the building and that was denied by the
City Council at the second reading of the ordinance. Consequently, modifications to the business that would
increase the size of the building are not allowed at this time under the City's current codes.
Mayor Margaret Clark stated that she would also like to explain that in order to allow the expansion of the
building we have to avoid a spot zoning situation, which is not proper. The City would have to allow slaughter
houses anywhere in the manufacturing zone, which in Rosemead it is three areas that allow manufacturing.
This would have allowed slaughter houses in three different areas of the City and there was considerable and
very large public opposition for that and that is the reason why that was changed unanimously by the
previous Council.
Ken Voong - stated that his mother had been purchasing chicken for over 20 years from Cal Poultry and that
there were many reasons, as other people had explained, why they have to purchase fresh chicken. He
added that more importantly they needed it for their prayers of their ancestors. Mr. Voong asked why it took
20 years to address the smell issue; if this business closes it would not only affect the employees of Cal
Poultry but the community as a whole.
City Attorney Joseph Montes stated that if there were no further speakers this evening, again he would just
remind the Council that this matter needs to be deferred back to the Planning Commission and the Council
shall take no action this evening other than to make a motion to continue the item to a date uncertain and if
there are modifications or additions to the ordinance that the Council would like the Planning Commission to
consider they should provide that information to staff at this time. If there are other actions that the Council
would like to consider this evening you can ask me any questions in that regard.
Mayor Pro Tem Gary Taylor asked if the public hearing was now closed.
Mr. Montes stated that the public hearing could not be closed at this point because we want to make sure
that all the testimony that was given tonight is included as part of the record and so we will continue the
hearing this evening as an open public hearing; that is my recommendation.
Council Member Polly Low translated the City Attorney's statements.
Mayor Pro Tern Gary Taylor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Steven Ly to continue the
public hearing to a future date after the Planning Commission reviews this item once again. Vote
resulted in:
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 11 of 17
EXHIBIT D
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
The City Council recessed at 8:44 p.m. and reconvened at 9:03 p.m.
8. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes
November 17, 2009 - Regular Meeting
January 12, 2009 - Regular Meeting
B. Claims and Demands
Resolution No. 2010 -14
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2010 -14, for payment of City expenditures in the
amount of $573,268.33 numbered 100685 through 100699 and 68513 and 68670,
inclusively.
C. Ordinance No. 866 - Second Reading: Approving Municipal Code Amendment 09-04,
to Require Design Review Approval for any Dwelling with a Development Living Area
Equal to or Exceeding Two Thousand Five Hundred Square Feet in R-1 and R•2 Zones.
On January 12, 2009, the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 886, which approved
Municipal Code Amendment 09-04, amending the Zoning Ordinance to require Design
Review approval for any dwelling with a developed living area equal to or exceeding two
thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet in R-1 and R-2 zones. Ordinance No. 886 is now
before Council at the required second reading for adoption.
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 866 at its second reading.
D. Whitmore Street Resurfacing Project Phase I - Authorization to Solicit Bids
As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2009-10 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council
approved the "Residential Street Resurfacing Project", which consists of the rehabilitation of
various streets within the City. This component of that project proposes the rehabilitation of
Whitmore Street from Del Mar Avenue to the Alhambra Wash. Funding for this project is
available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Community
Development Block Grant program (ARRA CDBG).
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize staff to advertise and solicit bids to
complete the improvement project.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010 EXHIBIT D
Page 12 of 17
E. Resolution No. 2010.04 Authorizing the Recordation of the Irrevocable Offer of
Dedication for those Portions of L.A. County Assessors Parcel No. 8595-011.011
Proposed for Use for Public Sidewalks and Amenities
In accordance with the City of Rosemead Municipal Code Section No. 15.04.040, the
owner(s) of the property located at 3016 Rosemead Place, have submitted an executed
irrevocable offer of dedication, The irrevocable offer of dedication has been determined by
the Civil Engineer to be necessary and appropriate to permit the installation of a street tree in
accordance with City standards.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2010-04, authorizing the
City Engineer to execute and record the irrevocable offer of dedication for L.A. County
Assessor Parcel No. 8595-011-011.
Mayor Pro Tem Gary Taylor asked that the minutes of the November 17 meeting be deferred to the next
City Council meeting. He asked that the PowerPoint presentation of the UFC item also be transcribed in
verbatim format.
Mayor Pro Tern Gary Taylor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Steven Ly to approve the
Consent Calendar EXCEPT for Item Nos. F and G and the Minutes of the November 17th City Council
meeting. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Resolution No. 2010.05 Authorizing the Recordation of the Irrevocable Offer of
Dedication for those Portions of L.A. County Assessors Parcel No. 5285-002.026
Proposed for Use for Public Sidewalks and Amenities
In accordance with the City of Rosemead Municipal Code Section No. 15.04.040, the
owner(s) of the property located at 2706 Lindy Avenue, have submitted an executed
irrevocable offer of dedication. The irrevocable offer of dedication has been determined by
the Civil Engineer to be necessary and appropriate to permit the installation of a street tree in
accordance with City standards.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2010-05, authorizing the
City Engineer to execute and record the irrevocable offer of dedication for L.A. County
Assessor Parcel No. 5285-002-026.
City Manager Jeff Allred stated that per a request of a resident it was asked that there be a minor
modification and this item would be brought back on a future meeting. No Action was taken on Item 8F.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 13 of 17
EXHIBIT D
G. City Tree Maintenance Services - Award Contract
At its December 8, 2009 meeting, the City Council approved specifications to solicit
proposals for annual tree maintenance services. The services include tree management and
regular maintenance of trees located within City parkways, medians, parks and City-owned
facilities. As urban forestry is an important City asset, these services are critical to ensure
that City trees remain healthy, aesthetically pleasing, and safe for both the motoring and
pedestrian public.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve authorize the City Manager to enter into a
contract with West Coast Arborist, Inc. for an estimated annual cost of $150,000 for the first
three (3) years, with an annual option to renew for the following two (2) years.
Juan Nunez - pointed out that there was a type-o on the agenda regarding the annual cost and it should be
$150,000 and not $150,00.
Mayor Pro Tern Gary Taylor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Steven Ly to enter into a
contract with West Coast Arborist, Inc., for an estimated annual cost of $150,000 for the first three (3)
years, with an annual option to renew for the following two (2) years. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
9. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF
A. Funding Request from Joy of Kung Fu for Sponsorship of "Fitness Awareness Day"
Event
Representatives from Joy of Kung Fu, a regional martial arts organization that promotes
general wellness, are requesting City sponsorship of a community-wide Fitness Awareness
Day on August 7, 2010 to be held at the Rosemead Community Recreation Center.
Additionally, they are requesting City Council authorization of event funding in the amount of
S4,000 to help offset event costs. .
Recommendation: That the City Council give staff direction regarding the request of Joy of
Kung Fu for sponsorship of Fitness Awareness Day 2010 and funding in the amount of
$4,000.
Director of Parks and Recreation David Montgomery-Scott reviewed the staff report.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 14 of 17
EXHIBIT D
Mayor Pro Tem Gary Taylor stated he had reservations over the number of request that were coming in, in
the sense that, we had a dog show over at the Mission Inn and we gave them a donation. He asked how
they would draw the limit to the number of people that come in and request donations. Mr. Taylor added that
he was not questioning the validity of it but asked how we would the draw the line for other businesses
because they should all be allowed to participate. He added that he would hate to be placed in a situation
where a business asked why the City donates to certain businesses and not to them.
Council Member Polly Low stated that she agreed with Mr. Taylor; she stated that she was supportive of
the different organizations in the City that promote events but the event was $10,000 and they were asking
for the City to pay half of that amount. She added that she was willing to help but she did not feel that the
City should be responsible for 50% of the cost. She stated that the City should have some sort of policy to
donate a few hundred dollars to organizations to help out but she did not think the City should be responsible
for 50% of the cost of these events. Mrs. Low asked if Joy of Kung Fu was a non-profit organization.
Mr. Montgomery-Scoff stated they were not even incorporated, therefore cannot be a non-profit organization.
Rather than asking for a donation they are asking that the City cosponsor the event; recognizing that by doing
so it would cost the City about $4,000.
Council Member Steven Ly stated that at least lately the City has been looking at ways to partner with
organizations for example EDI. Initially ED] came to the City and the cost was $22,000 and it was about
50%; and they lowered that because the cost was obviously too much. He added that he felt that in many
ways this was the same; partnering with other organizations that are City wide is a good thing if the Council
agrees with the event. Mr. Ly stated that he had spoken to the sponsors of the event and his feeling was that
they really just want to have a good day where they can talk about how to be more fit and how to be more
aware in terms of eating right and exercising.
Council Member Sandra Armenta asked if the City held a health fair.
Mr. Montgomery-Scott stated that at this point the only health fair that the City runs is a senior health fair.
Mayor Margaret Clark stated that she would feel more comfortable if they maybe gave half.
Council Member Polly Low stated she agreed with her and that there should be some guidelines that
addressed organizations requesting for donations.
City Manager Jeff Allred stated there were some guidelines that Council adopted about 5 or 6 months ago
and one of the guidelines was that an organization that received donations for these events would have to be
incorporated as a non-profit.
Mayor Pro Tem Gary Taylor referred to page 2 of the proposal and read the first paragraph addressing the
organizations and clarifying that Joy of Kung Fu was not incorporated. Mr. Taylor added that there would be
more confusion if the policy was not followed. He stated that the City was trying to make an effort to assist
organizations but he did not want to make this a free for all; he stated that they say it's a community based
event but they are also promoting their businesses.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 15 of 17
EXHIBIT D
Council Member Polly Low stated that if the City has a policy then the City should follow it because if they
don't then other requests will begin to start coming in.
Mayor Margaret Clark stated that she agreed and that the City needed to be consistent. She asked if the
City could waive the cost, if there were in kind services.
Mr. Montgomery-Scott stated that the items listed were in-kind services.
Mayor Pro Tem Taylorstated that included with the in-kind services the City could also promote this event in
the newsletter.
Mayor Pro Tern Gary Taylor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low to assist Joy of
Kung Fu furnish banners, announce the event in the City's newsletter, and provide them with a booth
at the 41^ of July celebration. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
10. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Council Member Sandra Armenta stated that on Martin Luther King Day there were two trees that had
fallen down; two on her street and one on Marshal. She commended Chris Marcarello and his staff for
having an outstanding response to those situations, especially Danny Godoy. She also asked if they could
look into the area of the intersection of Rio Hondo and Valley and Mission because the way the lighting is it is
very confusing to the residents.
Council Member Polly Low reminded everyone about the upcoming Lunar New Year event, which had been
cancelled the previous Saturday due to the weather.
Mayor Pro Tern Gary Taylor asked that the Council be provided from now on with the Rosemead Ad Hoc
Youth Committee agenda materials, as well as the Sister City Committee agenda materials. He also asked
regarding the brief discussion regarding the diseased trees; he asked how fast the City was going to have an
arborist go out there and check those trees because they are in bad shape.
Chris Marcarello stated that an arborist had been out earlier this week and will continue to be out inspecting
the trees and that report will be brought back to Council for their review, via the newsletter.
Council Member Steven Ly stated that at the last Council meeting he talked about how frustrated he is with
Southern California Edison in terms with our desire to gain access to some of their right of ways in order to
get more green space for the City. That frustration will be addressed at every meeting until this issue is
addressed by Southern California Edison and expects them to see at future City Council meetings.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 16 of 17
EXHIBIT D
Mayor Pro Tern Gary Taylor stated that the City has had an excellent relationship working with Edison and
currently the City has facilities under their power lines for a minimal of $1 a year and they have committed
three parcels for the City under those power Iines.:He added that he believed they were trying to work with
the City but as far as those sections across from the Edison headquarters; that to him was a different
situation.
11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. The joint Community Development Commission and City Council
meeting is adjourned to Saturday, February 6, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. at the Rosemead Park Swimming Pool for
a tour of facility as well as the Garvey Park Swimming Pool and aquatics facilities in neighboring
communities.
Margaret ark
Mayor
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda
City Clerk
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 26, 2010
Page 17 of 17
EXHIBIT D
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk for the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the minutes
from January 26, 2010 were duly and regularly approved and adopted by the Rosemead City
Council on the 23rd of February, 2010, by the following vote to wit:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Gloria Molleda
City Clerk
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: 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). 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
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached as Exhibit B.
The City Council conducted a public hearing on the item on January 26, 2010. At that
time it was discovered that the San Gabriel Valley 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. The minutes of the City Council meeting are attached as Exhibit C.
EXHIBIT E
Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 2010
Page 2 of 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider Resolution No. 10-05
(Exhibit D), 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. 10-05 and Section 2 of draft Ordinance No. 883. Finally
staff recommends that Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-05 in its
present form or as amended with extension language included and recommend
adoption of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts.
BACKGROUND
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
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.
ANALYSIS
Municipal Code Amendment 09-03 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. Staff initially recommended that a three (3) year amortization period
would be appropriate. At its December 7, 2009 public hearing, the Planning
Commission recommended that the amortization period end on December 31, 2010,
which would effectively grant less than a one year amortization period since the
ordinance requires two readings by the City Council after receiving its recommendation
from the Planning Commission.
Potential Extension Language
Recognizing that amortization of poultry slaughtering businesses may include aspects
not immediately apparent, at the January 26, 2010 City Council hearing, the City
Attorney offered to the City Council a procedure which could be added to the draft
EXHIBIT E
Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 2010
Page 3 of 5
amortization ordinance 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 (and Planning Commission Resolution) is set
forth below:
I.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:
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.
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.
Within 30 calendar days following the receipt of a complete
application, the Community Development Director shall set the
matter for a hearing.
D. Decision on extension application. The City Council will hold a public
hearing at which time all evidence and testimony regarding the request for an
extension of the amortization period will be considered. The burden will be on
the applicant to establish that the extension should be granted. 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 February 10, 2010.
2. The present actual and depreciated value of business
improvements.
EXHIBIT E
Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 2010
Page 4 of 5
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, if the Planning Commission were to recommend the inclusion of 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.
Amortization Date
Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission have its recommended
amortization date be defined as a length of time starting from the effective date of the
ordinance so that a full year (or other period of time) would -be granted and not a partial
year as would have been the case with the specific sunset date of December 31, 2010,
recommended by the Commission on December 7, 2009.
Attached hereto as Exhibit D is draft Resolution No. 10-05, which is the draft that was
first presented to the Planning Commission (three (3) year amortization period) on
December 7, 2009, with a modification to the starting date of the amortization period as
discussed above. Should the Planning Commission wish to modify the amortization
period, or add any provision concerning an application for extension of the amortization
period, those changes would need to be incorporated into any motion to adopt the
resolution.
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.
EXHIBIT E
Planning Commission Meeting
March 1, 2010
Page 5 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared recommending
accordance with the California Environmental
Study and Negative Declaration are attache(
Study is an environmental analysis of the I
whether the proposed land use will hav,
environment. This study has found th;
environmental impacts that could occur w
amendment.
the adoption of a Negative Declaration in
Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (the Initial
I to this report as Exhibit E). The Initial
roposed code amendment to determine
potentially significant effects on the
it there are no potentially significant
th the adoption of the proposed code
A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was distributed for a 20-day public
review and comment period between February 10, 2010 and March 1, 2010. 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). Additionally, notice was
mailed to the owner of Cal Poultry and all property owners within five-hundred feet of
the property occupied by Cal Poultry at 8932 Garvey Avenue.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Paul Garry Nong
Senior Planner Community Development Director
EXHIBIT E
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, and Commission Secretary Lockwood.
1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS
Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes January 19, 2010
Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chairman Alarcon to approve the minutes of
January 19, 2010 as presented.
Vote Resulted in:
Yes:
Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz
No:
None
Abstain:
None
Absent:
None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09.03 - 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
EXHIBIT F
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 ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-03
AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES
Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider Resolution 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. 10-05 and Section 2 of draft Ordinance No. 883. Finally staff
recommends that Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-05 in its present form or as amended
with extension language included and recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impacts.
Senior Planner Garry presented the staff report.
Chairwoman Herrera asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff.
Commissioner Eng asked staff what land uses are permitted on this site under the current zoning
Senior Planner Garry stated that site is zoned M-1 and light industrial uses are permitted. He then referred the
question to Principal Planner Bermejo.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that 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.
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 EXHIBIT F
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 Cal 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 states 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
packing lot looks like a loading dock. She also states she does not mind them selling the chickens, as long as the
slaughtering is elsewhere. She also states that chickens carry bacteria and the City could be fined.
Adolfo Ponce stated this is deja all over again. He has presented this item to the previous Planning Commission and
now this one, we have gone through 1 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
they still 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 stated that 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
EXHIBIT F
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 opening 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 start investing 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 zone change of the eight parks.
Chairwoman Herrera stated this item is later in Agenda.
Barbara Murphy stated in the late 80's the Planning Commission and City Council approved to change the number of
square footage to have more than one unit on residential property and discussed how hundreds of residents of
multiple units showed up at the Council Meeting protesting the change. She also stated that at that time the City
Council explained that they are now legal non-conforming and don't worry you will be grandfathered in. She stated
that she researched the meaning of'grandfathered" and said that she interpreted it to mean forever. She also stated
she is concerned that if businesses can be closed for being legal non-conforming, what is to stop City Council or the
Planning Commission from telling homeowners of multiple units the same thing.
Chairwoman Herrera closed public hearing.
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. He also stated that California has always been the State on the forefront; we were
the first to pass the smoking laws, smog control. He also stated the plan is to beautify Garvey Avenue and we don't
want to see 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 important. 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 that three years is not enough, as they have
invested in the City and they will need the time for a smooth transition to a more appropriate location.
4 EXHIBIT F
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 Attorney Murphy as follows; Commissioner
Ruiz motioned that Cal Poultry be given three years and adopt the resolution with staffs recommended extension
language as in section D of the staff report.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon asked Commissioner Ruiz to repeat the motion. He stated that the amortization period needs
to be a fixed period of time, such as 18 month or two years.
Commissioner Ruiz stated that the motion was for three years.
City Attorney Murphy clarified that Commissioner Ruiz would like the request that the amortization ordinance include
an extension option by applicant to reviewed by the Planning Commission instead of City Council. (This portion not
audible)
Chairwoman Herrera asked City Attorney Murphy what the benefit would be to the City.
City Attorney Murphy stated that staff would have to present the extension application to the City Council, but if it
goes to the Planning Commission, the applicant has the right to appeal to appeal it to the City Council.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated he was confused on what the motion is.
Chairwoman Herrera stated that Commissioner Ruiz is making a motion for three years and applicant would have to
come back to the Planning Commission for approval of the extension.
Commissioner Ruiz stated his motion is for three years, with the Planning Commission approving the extension
instead of City Council, and with the extension not having a set date.
City Attorney Murphy stated that Commissioner Ruiz's pending motion is to adopt the Resolution as recommended
with the extension language, but that the review of the extension would go to the Planning Commission for first. .
Commissioner Hunter questioned Chairwoman Herrera what exactly is the motion.
Chairwoman Herrera stated what the 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.
EXHIBIT F
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 Commissioners for a new motion.
Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunter for a fixed 2 year amortization
period with no extension.
Vote Results were:
Yes:
Alarcon, Hunter
No:
Eng, Herrera, Ruiz
Abstain:
None
Absent:
None
Chairwoman Herrera stated the motion was not passed and asked Commissioners for a new motion.
Commissioner Eng made a motion recommending that the City work with Cal Poultry to determine an amortization
period acceptable to both the City and the business that would provide a reasonable timeframe for the business to
relocate to a more appropriate location so that the business can continue to serve their customers.
City Attorney Murphy stated that this was not a proper motion and explained why. (Not Audible)
Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz to recommend three years with no
extension and to adopt the Resolution as recommended.
Vote Resulted in:
Yes:
Alarcon, Herrera, Ruiz
No:
Eng
Abstain:
Hunter
Absent:
None
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
EXHIBIT F
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 Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-03
(Exhibit C), a resolution directing 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. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission RECOMMEND that
the City Council consider the environmental determination and APPROVE General Plan Amendment 09-
01.
Principal Planner Bermejo presented the staff report and gave a power point presentation. She also stated Lisa
Brownfield, Land Use Consultant from Hogle-Ireland, and the Traffic Consultant from KOA are present to answer any
questions.
Lisa Brownfield, Land Use Consultant presented the Circulation Element
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that she received two letters from property owners in the mail and provided an
overview of each letter. She stated one is from the owner of the Auto Auction site, requesting that this item be
postponed due to the fact they are out of the country. She stated that because this item will be going to the City
Council for approval, the property owner will have the opportunity to discuss their issues at the Council meeting. She
also stated the second letter was from property owners Mr.B Mrs. Ann Lieu of 7951 Garvey, who were concerned
about the new Specific Plan land use designation on their property. Principal Planner Bermejo presented staff
recommendations to Planning Commission, which included revising the draft specific plan land use designation to a
High Intensity Commercial land use designation, and omitting the property located at 7951 Garvey Avenue from that
designation.
City Attorney Murphy clarified staffs recommendation to Planning Commission.
Chairwoman Herrera asked Commissioners if there were any questions for staff.
Commissioner Eng asked staff to 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.
EXHIBIT F
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 Low 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 owners, being affected by the mixed-use land use
designation change, who are out of the country at the moment. She expressed her concern that the property owner
will suffer a substantial financial loss if this is approved. She also stated that this is a new Planning Commission and
the Planning Commission that approved the General Plan in 2007 is not present to answer any questions. She also
stated that the City needs to have some compassion for the present business owners.
Warren Lieu stated that he is speaking in behalf of his parents. He stated that the amendment will financially affect
his family's income and property.
Lisa Brownfield stated Principal Planner Bermejo recommended that their property (7951 Garvey) not be included in
the High Intensity Commercial land use designation, and asked it that would be acceptable to him.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated that is correct is will stay as is.
Warren Lieu stated he feels that is alright but needs to talk to his parents.
Simon Lee stated that he would like to request that the mixed-use designation be included on the properties at Del
Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue, and on the Auto Auction site.
Robert Stacket, stated he owns a piece of property next to the auto auction which is a mobile home park. He also
stated he is concerned how this General Plan Amendment will affect this parcel. He also stated that seniors occupy
this mobile home park, and that they will have no where to go.
Principal Planner Bermejo stated tonight's General Plan Amendment is to keep that parcel designation commercial
as it was in the 80's. She clarified 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.
EXHIBIT F
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.
Chairwoman Herrera asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak.
None
Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to ADOPT Resolution No. 10.03
(Exhibit C), a resolution directing 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 RECOMMEND that the City Council consider the environmental determination and
APPROVE General Plan Amendment 09.01.
Vote Resulted in:
Yes:
Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz
No:
None
Abstain:
None
Absent:
None
Community Development Director Wong confirmed the vote and stated that this item will be presented at the City
Council Meeting of April 13, 2010. He also stated this is a tentative date.
C. ZONE CHANGE 10.01 - The City of Rosemead proposes to change the zoning classification of eight (8)
City parks to the 0-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, and
5287-020-904), 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).
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 0-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 EXHIBIT F
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.
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 grants.
Staff replied yes it will.
Chairwoman Herrera opened public hearing.
Rick Loya stated that he has been a resident of Rosemead for fifty years. He also stated that he does not
understand exactly what a zone change means. He asked for clarification of exactly what will be happening to the
City parks. He also gave a brief history of when the parks were built, and he expressed how important the parks are
to the community. He said please save our parks.
Commissioner Ruiz stated he understands his concerns, and that this will allow the City to get federal funding to
improve our parks. He also stated we will continue to provide recreation for our community.
Commissioner Eng questioned if we are making changes to the park or if we are just reclassifying the zone to be able
to get federal funding.
Principal Planner Bermejo replied it is strictly reclassifying the land as open space.
Todd (last name not audible), resident of Rosemead, expressed concern with the zone change and stated that he
and his wife use the park for exercising. He said he wanted to make sure that this change will not affect them using
the park.
Nancy Eng stated we are not selling the park. We are just reclassifying it to apply for grants to improve the park.
Chairwoman Herrera closed the public hearing.
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 0-S (Open Space) zoning designation.
Vote Resulted in:
Yes:
Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz
No:
None
Abstain:
None
Absent:
None
10 EXHIBIT F
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 Bennejo 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 not seen any parking violations. She also stated Code
Enforcement is still monitoring this site.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 15, 2010.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
Rachel Lockwood
Commission Secretary
Diana Herrera
Chairwoman
11 EXHIBIT F
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 ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-03
AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AMORTIZATION
OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES
WHEREAS, Section 17.116.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth
procedures and requirements for municipal code amendments; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2010, an Initial Environmental Study for the
proposed Municipal Code Amendment was completed, finding that the proposed project
could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was
prepared, in accordance with the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act,
and local environmental guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has adopted the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, and map, including specific development standards, to control development;
and .
. WHEREAS, Municipal Code Amendment 09-03 establishes an amortization
period for all nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses; and
WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the
Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed municipal code
amendments to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2010, a notice was published in the San Gabriel
Valley Tribune specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public
hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal
Code Amendment 09-03; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all
testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Rosemead as follows:
EXHIBIT G
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 does hereby recommend that Section
17.12.105 be added to Chapter 17.12 of Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to
read as follows:
"Section 17 12 105 Amortization of Nonconforming Poultry 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. i
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 5. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of Municipal Code Amendment 09-03, requiring the
amortization of nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses within the City of
Rosemead.
EXHIBIT G
SECTION 6. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on March 1, 2010 by the following vote:
YES: Alarcon, Herrera, Ruiz
NO: Eng
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Hunter
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 March 2010.
Dian rrera, 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 1st day of March,
2010, by the following vote:
YES:
Alarcon, Herrera, Ruiz
NO:
Eng
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Hunter
Stan Wong, S etary
EXHIBIT G
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:
Paul Garry, Senior Planner 626-569-2147
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:
Mixed Use High Density Residential/Commercial (MHRC)
7. Zoning:
Citywide
8. Description of project:
The City of Rosemead is proposing to amend Rosemead Zoning Ordinance Section 17.12
to amortize all non-conforming poultry slaughter businesses in the City of Rosemead by
December 31, 2012. There will be no associated development related to this code
amendment.
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.
Initial Study Environmental Checklist , - .
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 Con
servation 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 H
Initial Studv Environmental Checklist
Less Thari•_
Potentially,, iSignificant Less Than
Significant With Signifaant 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. Biological.Resources
4..
Would 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?
Initial Studv Environmental checklist
-
Less. Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant
No
Environmental Issues
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Impact
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
❑
❑
❑
19
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
S. Cultural Resources
Would 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.,-:Geology and Soils
Would 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 H
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
-
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
- -
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues
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. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would 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
❑ ❑ ❑
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 H
Initial Studv Environmental checklist
Less Than
-
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
h)
Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
❑ ❑ ❑
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
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
❑ ❑ ❑ 19
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 H
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
- Environmental Issues
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
❑ ❑ ❑
mudflow?
9.=r 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?
M.Mineral Resources
Would 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. Noise
Would 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?
H
Initial Study Environmental
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant
No
Environmental Issues
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Impact
e) Fora 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?
❑
❑
❑
11
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?
Initial Studv Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
15. Transportation/Traffic
Would 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
Initial Studv 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
'
❑ ❑ ❑
adequate capacity to serve the project
s
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
❑ ❑ ❑ 10
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
❑ ❑ ❑
waste?
17. Mandatory 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 H
10
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Environmental Factors That Could Result in a Potentially Significant Impact
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
Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
HydrologyMater
Quality
❑
Noise
❑
Recreation
❑
Air Quality
❑
Geology/Soils
❑
Land Use/Planning
❑
Population/Housing
❑
Transportation/Traffic
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Public Services
❑
Utilities/Services
Systems
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
EXHIBIT H
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
® I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment,
and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent, A Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
Environmental Impact Report is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and 2) has been addressed by mitigation 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.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards,
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signed Date
EXHIBIT H
12
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
® I find. that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment,
and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
Environmental Impact Report is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and 2) has been addressed by mitigation 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.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards,
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signed Date
Q- q- io
EXHIBIT H
12
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
City of Rosemead
Planning Division
8838 E. Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, California 91770
PROJECT TITLE: Municipal Code Amendment No. 09-03 (MCA 09-03)
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Rosemead
PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Paul Garry
ADDRESS: City of Rosemead - Planning Division, 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead,
CA 91770
TELEPHONE: (626) 569-2147
PROJECT LOCATION: City of Rosemead (citywide)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Rosemead is proposing to amend Rosemead Zoning Ordinance Section
17.12 to amortize all non-conforming poultry slaughter businesses in the City of
Rosemead by December 31, 2012. There will be no associated development related to
this code amendment.
FINDING
On the basis of the initial study on file in the Planning Division:
X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
The proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment,
however there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program on file in the Planning
Division Office were adopted to reduce the potential impacts to a level of
insignificance.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Completed by: Paul Garry
Title: Senior Planner
Date: February 9, 2010
Determination Approved:
Title:
Date:
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: February 10, 2010 to March 1, 2010
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT: Yes No
INITIAL STUDY REVISED: Yes No
EXHIBIT H