CC - Item 3E - Ord. 868 AmendmentROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OLIVER C. CHI, CITY MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 13, 2009
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 868— SECOND READING: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT
08 -01 AMENDING ZONING SECTION 17.56.020(B)
SUMMARY
On December 16, 2008, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 868 amending Section
17.56.020(B), of the Rosemead Municipal Code to allow Live Poultry Slaughtering and
Processing with or without retail sales as permitted use. Per Government Code, Ordinance No.
868 must be approved at a second reading.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 868, on second reading.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Prepared by:
U& &04
GLORIA MOLLEDA
CITY CLERK
Attachment A — City Council Staff Report dated December 16, 2008
Attachment B — Ordinance No. 868
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: 0* ITEM NUMBER:
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER
DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2008
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 08 -01
A REQUEST TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION
17.56.020(B), LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL,
PERMITTED USES, TO ALLOW LIVE POULTRY SLAUGHTERING AND
PROCESSING WITH OR WITHOUT RETAIL SALES AS A PERMITTED
USE
SUMMARY
Mr. Quan Phu, owner of the Cal Poultry slaughtering and retail facility located at 8932
Garvey Avenue, has submitted an application requesting a municipal code amendment
to allow poultry slaughtering and processing, with or without retail sales, as a permitted
use in the Light Manufacturing and Industrial (M -1) zone.
Proiect History
Cal Poultry has operated in the City for the last seventeen years. Shortly after they
were issued a business license to operate, the City Council adopted an ordinance which
deleted the use from the municipal code, thus making Cal Poultry a legal nonconforming
use.
Over the last two years the business operation has received several violation notices
from both the City, as well as from Los Angeles County public agencies. Citations were
issued mainly for unsightly outdoor storage, storm water pollution runoff, and nuisance
odors.
Cal Poultry. has submitted a property improvement proposal for review and approval.
However, since the Rosemead Municipal Code does not permit legal non - conforming
uses to expand their use in any way, the City has not been able to permit building
renovations that would resolve the violations the business is facing.
If this amendment is approved, Mr. Phu will be submitting plans for major facility
renovation that will include the installation of a more robust air filtration system and
other amenities that will allow for a cleaner and more efficient process to slaughter live
poultry.
ITEMM NO. '1 A
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: O,
City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Page 2 of 3
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Negative Declaration and
adopt Ordinance No. 868 (Attachment A), modifying the zoning code with respect to
permitted uses in the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone, thereby approving
Municipal Code Amendment 08 -01.
ANALYSIS
In order to properly evaluate this application, staff carefully . scrutinized the proposed use
along with the potential impact to the community. To further understand this use, staff
visited the existing Cal Poultry. facility, interviewed staff from the State Department of
Food and Agriculture (Meat and Poultry), and surveyed other cities in the Southern
California region.
Such businesses operate on a daily basis. Although hours of operation would not be
regulated, it would be common for a business of this type to operate between 8:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. This type of business will receive truck deliveries, as many as three (3)
to five (5) per day, which usually arrive before or after business hours. All .poultry
slaughter and processing facilities are licensed and closely regulated by the State
Department of Agriculture (California Meat and Poultry Inspection Branch).
Approving this municipal code amendment may help discourage the unregulated
slaughtering of poultry on residential properties within the City limits, which could
increase without this code amendment. Staff also believes that permitting such a use
only in the industrial areas of the City would have the least impact on the community as
a whole. A copy of the City's current zoning map has been included in this report as
Attachment B.
However, it is important to note that the poultry slaughtering and processing use poses.
unique impacts, which would be difficult to regulate without specific development
standards. For this reason, if the municipal code text amendment is approved, staff has
recommended that several development standards be included in the ordinance. The
proposed development standards have been included to mitigate potential impacts of
noise, odor, waste, aesthetics and parking issues. A copy of the proposed Ordinance
has been included in this report as Attachment A.
On November 17, 2008, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing. At this public hearing, the Commissioners received comments in
opposition to the project from residents who reside within the vicinity of the Cal Poultry
facility. Phyllis Tury, a resident of the City, also submitted a copy of a violation letter
from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, dated April 24, 2008. This
letter has been included in this report as Attachment C. Upon hearing all testimonies
from the applicant and the public, the Commission unanimously recommended approval
of this project to the City Council. The Planning Commission also made findings of
environmental adequacy and recommended that the City Council approve the Negative
Declaration. The Planning Commission staff report, the Planning Commission
City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Pace 3 of 3
Resolution, the Negative Declaration and the draft Planning Commission Minutes have
been included in this report as Attachments D through G respectively.
Prepared. by`
Sheri Bermejo
Acting Planning Services Manager
Manager
Attachment A:
Ordinance 868
Attachment B:
Zoning Map
Attachment C:
California Regional Water Quality Control Board letter, dated April 24, 2008
Attachment D:
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 17, 2008
Attachment E:
Planning Commission Resolution 08 -30
Attachment F:
Negative Declaration
Attachment G:
Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 17, 2008
ORDINANCE NO. 868
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 08-
1, AMENDING SECTION 17.56.020 OF THE ROSEMEAD
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW. POULTRY SLAUGHTERING
AND PROCESSING, WITH OR WITHOUT RETAIL SALES, AS A
PERMITTED USE IN THE M -1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND
INDUSTRIAL) ZONE, AND APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION THEREFORE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The.following Findings are adopted in support of the
amendment to Section 17.56.020 of the zoning ordinance by the City of
Rosemead regulating poultry slaughtering and processing, with or without retail
sales, as a permitted use in the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone.
A. The City Council of the City of Rosemead wishes to promote the
City of Rosemead's interest in protecting and preserving the quality and
character of the residential, commercial, and industrial areas in the City, and the
quality of life through effective land use planning; and
B. The City does not permit poultry slaughtering and processing, with
or without retail sales, as a permitted use in the current zoning code, and
C. The City wishes to allow poultry slaughtering and processing, with
or without retail sales, in the M -1 (Light Manufacturing) zone, with minimum
development standards to reduce potential impacts to the public health and
welfare of the community, and
D. It is the purpose and intent of the Ordinance to provide for the
reasonable and uniform regulation of poultry slaughtering and processing uses,
with or without retail sales, in the City of Rosemead. It is recognized that such
land use will only be appropriate in the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and ,Industrial)
zone. It is also recognized that food is essential to the health and well being of
humans, and that unregulated operation of slaughterhouses may create health
hazards, or otherwise jeopardize the public health and welfare of the residents of
the City of Rosemead, and
E. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public
convenience, health, safety, or general welfare of the City, and
F. The City .staff has prepared an initial study pursuant to the
ATTACHMENT
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This initial study has determined
that the proposed zoning amendment will not have any adverse impact on the
environment, and accordingly has prepared and recommends adoption of a
Negative Declaration.
Section 2. Pursuant to the City of Rosemead's CEQA Procedures and
CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance will
not have a.potential significant environmental impact. This conclusion is based
upon the record, the initial study and comments received during the public review
period. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared according to the
California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and a Notice of Determination
has been prepared.
The City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has
reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period
prior to the approval of this project. Furthermore, the City Council has exercised
its own discretionary and independent judgment in reaching the above
conclusion. The City Council, therefore, hereby adopts the Negative Declaration
for Municipal Code Amendment 08 -01.
Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(v)(1),
the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole,
there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential adverse effects
on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends.
Furthermore, on the basis of substantial evidence, the City Council he finds
that any presumption of adverse impacts has been adequately rebutted.
Therefore,. pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.2 and Title XIV,
California Code of Regulations, Section 735.5(a)(3), the City Council finds that
the project has no potential effect on fish, wildlife and habitat resources.
Based upon the foregoing, City Council approved the negative declaration
attached as Exhibit B to the staff report.
Section 3. CODE AMENDMENT.. Section 17.56.020 (Permitted Uses) of
the Rosemead Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
17.56.020(B) — Poultry Slaughtering and Processing, with or without Retail
Sales, only in the manner prescribed herein:
a. City approval and issuance of a Building Permit, Business
Certificate of Occupancy, and Business License shall be subject to
a facility management plan, waste handling plan,, and a site plan
approved in writing by the City of Rosemead. The facility shall
have all necessary federal, state and county licenses and
approvals, and comply with all state and federal health and safety
regulations. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of
the United States Department of Agriculture and the California
State Department of Food and Agriculture.
b. Noise levels shall comply with the noise standards of the
Rosemead Municipal Code. The slaughter of poultry shall take
place inside a closed building in a confined area to prevent
transmission of sound associated with the slaughter to the outside.
c. Applicants shall submit an odor control plan for review and approval
by the City prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, Business
Certificate of Occupancy, and Business License. The odor control
plan shall include the use of filtration devices and ventilation
equipment to disperse and eliminate odors. The applicant shall be
required to demonstrate that nuisance odors can be contained on-
site. All odor causing substances and /or materials shall be
enclosed within the building.
d. Applicants shall ensure proper waste disposal at all times. Animal
waste shall be removed from the property in accordance with
USDA regulations and disposed in an approved manner by ' a
certified waste disposal company. Animal waste shall be stored in
airtight containers and shall be confined in a fully enclosed,
refrigerated structure within the main building. All waste. shall be
disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state and
local regulations.
e. Outdoor storage of materials and /or livestock shall be directly
prohibited. New facilities entering the City, upon the effective date
-of the new ordinance, shall have all loading and unloading areas
screened from view from adjacent properties and public streets.
New facilities entering the City, upon the effective date of the new
ordinance, shall be located at least one hundred (100) feet away
from property zoned or designated by the general plan for
residential use. Windows shall be tinted and /or screened for the
purpose of screening slaughtering activities and /or storage of
materials. Screen materials shall require review and approval by
the Planning Division. All industrial equipment used with the
business, including fork lifts, shall be contained within an enclosed
building.
f. Parking requirements shall be as provided in Section 17.84.100(B).
New facilities entering the City, upon the effective date of the new
ordinance, shall provide a Traffic Impact Analysis.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY DECLARES that
it would have passed . and adopted Ordinance No. 868 and each and all
provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions
may be .declared to be invalid.
Section 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30)
days after its adoption.
Section 8. ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this ordinance and shall publish a summary of this ordinance and post a certified
copy of the full ordinance in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to
the adoption and within 15 days after adoption of the ordinance, the City Clerk
shall publish a summary of the ordinance with the names of the council members
voting for and against the ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days
after the date of its adoption.
Section 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this day of 2008.
JOHN TRAN, Mayor
ATTEST:
GLORIA MOLLEDA, City Clerk
California R . rional Water Quality 'ontrol Board
Ff
Los Angeles Region
11.61limtl of the 2001 6nnirannmatal Leadership Arvard from Keep Calilornin Beautiful ,Fs.
Linda S. Adams 320 W. 4th Street, Suite 2110, Los Angcics, Califomin 90013 Arnold Sehts•arzenegger
:IgutnY S'ecrclan 1'hunc (213) 576 -6600 FAX(213)576-6640 - Internet Address: intp:/ Awvw .waterbuards.ca.guv.9osungcles Gm,rruar
April 24, 2088
Plum Phu, Manager
Cal Poultry r I Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested
8932 Garvey Avenue 7002-2410 0005 0647 6464
Rosemead, CA 91770
NOTICE OF VIOLATION- ILLICIT NON -STORM WATER DISCHARGE: UNDER
THE NPDES GENERAL PERMIT FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED
WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY WDID # 419I 020629 (ORDER NO. 97 -03 DWQ;
NPDES NO. CAS000001)
Dear Mr. Phu:
As the operator of an industrial facility located at 8932 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, California,
you are subject to requirements specified in a General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Industrial Activities (Permit). In order to certify your intent 10 comply with the
Permit when discharging storm water from your industrial facility, you (or your authorized
representative) signed a Notice of Intent (NOT) on December 7, 2006. In signing the NOI, Quan
Phu has certified to the State of California that you or your representative have read the Permit
and will comply with all requirements specified in the Permit.
The Cal Poultry facility, identified by the above WDID (# 419I 020629), is a permitted facility
under the Storm Water Industrial Activities General Permit ( NPDES No. CAS000001, Waste
Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activities).
Regional Board Staff (Jim Covin) inspected the site on March 21, 2008. During the inspection,
employees of the Cal Poultry facility were observed using hose -pipes to wash down water from
the chicken storage area adjacent to Garvey Avenue (Photos 1 -8). There is a storm drain inlet on
the corner of Garvey Avenue and River Avenue. Staff observed the wash down wastewater
discharged from the chicken storage area to the storm drain inlet on Garvey Avenue (Photos 9-
11). The storm drain inlet drains to the Rio Hondo Channel, which is tributary to the Los
Angeles River.
You are hereby notified that you are in non - compliance with the requirements specified in Order
No. 97 -03 -DWQ, NPDES Permit No. CAS 000001 and have violated California Water Code
Section 13353 as follows:
ATTACHMENT C
California Environmental Protection Agency
fgencJ
' e,:�n'rlxhll „:r
- —
i” qo' me1' e) aI:. IL?risrrrr nnr!r:nhl:n:r flit! /unlill oi[rriiJrrnir.i::rrorr irsrnn:•:c•in: Uir irenr./il nj /nrauv nnr.'jinm�genrrnenne.
Mr. Phun Phu, Manager. - 2 - April 24, 2008
Non -storm water from the chicken storage area was observed being discharged to Garvey
Avenue.
In order to come into compliance, you are required to do the following:
1) Immediately implement corrective and preventable actions, to include ceasing all illicit
discharges from your site to bring your facility into full compliance with the requirements
of Order No. 9i- 03-DYIQ.
2) Submit by May 23, 2008, for approval by the Executive Officer, a report detailing the
corrective actions taken and the results thereof.
Pursuant to §13385 of the California Water Code, the permittee is liable for administrative civil
liability (penalties) of up to $10,000 per day for each violation, plus $10 multiplied by the
number of gallons by which the volume discharged but not cleaned up exceeds 1,000 gallons.
These civil liabilities may be assessed by the Regional Board beginning with the date that the
violations first occurred, and without further warning.
The Regional Board may also request that the Attorney General seek judicial civil liabilities or
injunctive relief pursuant to CWC § 13262, 13364, 13304, 13331, 13340, and 13386.
Furthermore, the Regional Board may also.request the U.S. Attorney, appropriate County District
Attorney, or City Attomey to seek criminal prosecution. A superior court may be requested to
impose civil or criminal penalties.
Should the permittee wish to contest the allegations in this Notice of Violation, please contact
Mr. James Covin immediately, and submit evidence in writing that supports the permitee's
position.
if you have any questions regarding.this matter, please contact Mr. James Covin at (213) 620-
2229.
Sincerely,
cc: Joe Tang; City Engineer, City of Rosemead
Cttlifnrnta En virunnicutal Protection .4gen Ct'
' Zed RecrNerl Pnper '
ilurr :ruccior l' v: ma,.en•r nnr: eniumce liar nuniirr o,'C.Tdi /ir.•v;ir. } utiler''e -%ow .....,for Ure Lend: n; 1 "esnn mu/;l: we gcnernnnm.
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2008
SUBJECT: MUNICPAL. CODE AMENDMENT 08 -01, AMENDING ZONING
ORDINANCE SECTION 17.56.020(B), LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND
INDUSTRIAL, PERMITTED USES, TO ALLOW LIVE POULTRY
SLAUGHTERING AND PROCESSING WITH OR WITHOUT RETAIL
SALES AS A PERMITTED USE
SUMMARY
Mr. Quan Phu, owner of the Cal Poultry slaughtering and retail facility located at 8932
Garvey Avenue, has submitted an application requesting a municipal code amendment
to allow poultry slaughtering and processing, with or without retail sales; as a permitted
use in the Light Manufacturing and Industrial (M -1) zone.
Proiect History
Cal Poultry, a poultry slaughtering and processing plant with a retail facility, has been
operating in the City of Rosemead for the last seventeen years. When the business
was first issued a Certificate of Occupancy on January 10, 1991, "poultry and rabbit
raising, slaughter or storage" was a permitted use in the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and
Industrial) zone. However, on May 14, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
683, which deleted the land use from the municipal code, thus making Cal Poultry .a
legal nonconforming use.
According to Section 17.12.060(B) of the Rosemead Municipal Code, any such
nonconforming use may be maintained and continued, provided there is no increase
and enlargement of the area, space or volume occupied or devoted to such a non-
conforming use, except as otherwise provided in this title.
It is important to note that over the last decade, the City has dealt with the Cal Poultry
facility unevenly.. In 1997, the City entered into an Impact Agreement with Mr. Phu,
when he proposed the construction of the retail establishment located at 8942 Garvey
Avenue, just east of the slaughtering facility.
ATTACHMENT
Planning Commission Meeting
November 17, 2008
Page 2 of 10
Then, in 1999, the City issued a permit to allow an existing outdoor storage room to be
fully enclosed to improve outdoor odor and storage issues.
More recently, in 2006, the City began receiving several complaints from two neighbors
who reside in the, surrounding neighborhood of the Cal Poultry property. Site
inspections completed by Code Enforcement and Planning Division staff verified that
the business had performed additional interior building modifications without permits
and was in violation of several property maintenance provisions of the municipal code.
These violations included, but were not limited to, unsightly outdoor storage, storm
water pollution runoff, and nuisance odors.
During this time City staff contacted several County and State regulatory agencies to
gain assistance on the matter. On November 7, 2006, a property improvement proposal
was submitted to the City by Cal Poultry. This proposal suggested building
improvements to reduce odor, to improve the appearance of the property, and to control
storm water pollution run -off at the property. owner's expense. However, since the
Rosemead Municipal Code does not permit legal non - conforming uses to expand their
use in any way, the City has not been able to process and permit building renovations
that would resolve the violations the business is facing.
Most recently, in August 2008, Cal Poultry was cited by the Los Angeles County Health
Department Food and Milk Division from odor issues from bird droppings, broken eggs
and dead chickens.
Staff presented an overview of this information to the City Council'on May 13, 2008 in
seeking direction regarding how to proceed with this particular use. At that meeting,
staff was directed to advise the applicant to apply for a zoning code text amendment
that would permit poultry slaughtering and processing in the M -1 zone.
If this amendment is approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, Mr.
Phu will be submitting plans for major facility renovation that will include the installation
of a more robust air filtration system and other amenities that will allow for a cleaner and
more efficient process to slaughter live poultry.
Environmental Determination
An Initial Study recommending the adoption of a Negative Declaration was prepared
and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
guidelines. The Initial Study is an environmental analysis of the proposed code
amendment to determine whether the proposed land use will have potentially significant
effects on the environment. This study has found that there are no potentially significant
environmental impacts that could occur with the adoption of the proposed code
amendment.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 17, 2008
Page 3 of 10
A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was distributed for a 20 -day public
review and comment period commencing on October 28, 2008 and closed on
November 17, 2008. The Negative Declaration, as required, by CEQA guidelines, is
attached to this report. 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.
Municipal Code Requirements
Section 17.116.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) authorizes the Planning
Commission to consider and recommend proposed municipal code amendments to the
City Council whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good
zoning practice justifies such action.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission .ADOPT Resolution No. 08 -30, a
resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Negative Declaration and
ADOPT Ordinance No. 868, modifying the zoning code with respect to permitted uses in
the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone.
ANALYSIS
Poultry Slaughtering Process
In order to properly evaluate this application, staffs goal was to carefully scrutinize the
proposed use along with the potential impact to the community. Part of being able to
analyze any foreseeable impacts, is to gain an understanding of the general business
operation of a poultry slaughtering and processing facility. To further understand this
use, staff visited the existing Cal Poultry facility, interviewed staff from the State
Department of Food and Agriculture (Meat and Poultry), and surveyed other cities in the
Southern California region.
The typical business operation of a poultry slaughtering and processing facility, includes
the following:
1. Approximately 2,500 chickens are delivered in a truck from a chicken ranch or
farm located outside the City.
2. Live chickens are temporarily stored within the storage area of the building.
Chickens are contained within crates.
-
3. Live chickens are slaughtered in a designated slaughter area in the building. An
electric stunner is used, as required by the State of California, and the cutting of
the throat instantly follows this operation. Blood is drained from chickens and
Planning Commission Meeting
November 17, 2008
Paoe 4 of 10
collected.in a pan. Blood is not washed down a drain. It is then.disposed in a
waste container provided by a rendering company.
4. Chickens are placed in a scalder, which uses hot water to help facilitate feather
removal.
5. Chickens are then placed in a feather picker for complete feather removal.
Feathers are collected and properly disposed of in a waste container provided by
a rendering company.
6. The internal parts of the chickens are then removed. Giblets are disposed of in
waste containers, sealed, and then picked up daily by a rendering company.
7. Chickens are sold at a retail counter. Chickens that are not sold are chilled in ice
water overnight in stainless steel containers.
Such businesses operate on a daily, basis. Although hours of operation would not be
regulated, it would be common for a business of this type to operate between 8:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. This type of business will receive truck deliveries, as many as three (3)
to five (5) per day, which usually arrive before or after business hours. All poultry
slaughter and processing facilities are licensed and closely regulated by the State
Department of Agriculture (California Meat and Poultry Inspection Branch). Upon the
approval of each business, the State assigns a Veterinary Medical Officer to inspect the
facility on nearly a daily basis. Each facility is required to establish a designated office
for their assigned State inspector. within the facility. The State inspector's role is to
ensure the wholesome production of food, and to verify that the facility operates to the
highest degree of cleanliness, and to make sure that live poultry are treated humanely,
which includes proper nutrition, housing, handling and slaughtering.
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Approving this municipal code amendment. may help discourage the unregulated
slaughtering of poultry on residential properties within the City limits, which could
increase without this code amendment. Staff also believes that permitting such a use
only in the industrial areas of City would have the least impact on the community as a
whole.
However, it is important to note that the poultry slaughtering and processing use poses
unique impacts, which would be difficult to regulate without specific development
standards. For instance, such facilities could bring odor and negative image impacts,
Which may drive away residents and businesses from locating nearby,the proposed use.
For this reason, if the municipal code text amendment is approved, staff recommends
that the following development standards be included in conjunction with poultry
Planning Commission Meeting
November 17, 2008
Page 5 of 10
slaughtering and processing, with or without retail sales, as a permitted use in the M -1
(Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone.
Licensing: City approval and issuance of a Building Permit, Business Certificate
of Occupancy, and Business License shall be subject to a facility management
plan, waste handling plan, and a site plan approved in writing by the City of
Rosemead. The facility shall have all necessary federal, state and county
licenses and approvals, and comply with all state and federal health and safety
regulations. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the United
States Department of Agriculture and the California State Department of Food
and Agriculture.
Noise: Noise levels shall comply with the noise standards of the Rosemead
Municipal Code. The slaughter of poultry shall take place inside a closed building
in a confined area to prevent transmission of sound associated with the slaughter
to the outside.
• Odor: Applicants shall submit an odor control plan for review and approval by the
City prior. to the issuance of a Building, Permit, Business Certificate of
Occupancy, and Business License. The odor control plan shall include the use
of filtration devices and ventilation equipment to disperse and eliminate odors.
The applicant shall be required to demonstrate that nuisance odors can be
contained on -site. All odor causing substances and /or materials shall be
enclosed within the building.
Waste: Applicants shall ensure proper waste disposal at all times. Animal waste
shall be removed from the property in accordance with USDA regulations and
disposed in an approved manner by a certified waste disposal company. Animal
waste shall be stored in airtight containers and shall be confined in a fully
enclosed, refrigerated structure within the main building. All waste shall be
disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations.
• Aesthetics: Outdoor storage of materials and /or livestock shall be directly
prohibited. New facilities entering the City, upon the effective date of the new
ordinance, shall have all loading and unloading areas screened from view from
adjacent properties and public streets. New facilities entering the City, upon the
effective date of the new ordinance, shall be located at least one hundred (100)
feet away from property zoned or designated by the general plan for residential
use. Windows shall be tinted and /or screened for the purpose of screening
slaughtering activities and /or storage of materials. Screen materials shall require
review and approval by the Planning Division. All industrial equipment used with
the business, including fork lifts, shall be contained within an enclosed building.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 17, 2008
Page 6 of 10
Parking: Parking requirements shall be as provided in Section 17.84.100(B).
New facilities entering the City, upon the effective date of the new ordinance,
shall provide a Traffic Impact Analysis.
Conclusion
Staff has concentrated their analysis of this request on how a poultry slaughterhouse
use in the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone could impact the public safety,
health, and welfare of the persons working and residing in the City of Rosemead. Staff
believes that the proposed use in the M -1 zone will not jeopardize the public safety,
health, and welfare of the community, as long as the recommended minimum
development standards included in the proposed ordinance are complied with by
prospective applicants.
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).
Prepared by: Su ed
Sheri Bermejo B Sa i
Senior Planner Assis t City Manager
Exhibits:
A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 08 -30
B. Initial Study & Negative Declaration
C. Draft Ordinance No. 868
PC RESOLUTION 08 -30
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 08 -01 TO ALLOW LIVE
POULTRY SLAUGHTERING AND PROCESSING, WITH OR
WITHOUT RETAIL SALES, AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE M -1
(LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL) ZONE.
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2008, Mr. Quan Phu, owner of the Cal Poultry
slaughtering and retail facility located at 8932 Garvey Avenue, submitted an
application requesting a municipal code amendment to allow poultry slaughtering
and processing, with or without retail sales, as a permitted use in the Light
Manufacturing and Industrial (M -1) zone.
WHEREAS, Section 17.116.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets
forth procedures and requirements for municipal code amendments; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2008, 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 08 -01 would allow ,poultry
slaughtering and processing, with or without retail sales, in the M -1 (Light
Manufacturing and Industrial) zone as a permitted use; and
WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize
the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed municipal code
amendments to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2008, 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
ATTACHMENT
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony
relative to Municipal Code Amendment 08 -01; 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:
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 08 -01.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND
DETERMINES that Municipal Code Amendment 08 -01 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 08 -01 is consistent with the
Rosemead General Plan as follows:
A. Land Use: Municipal Code Amendment 08 -01 consists of
amending Section 17.56.020(B) allowing poultry slaughtering and processing,
with or without retail sales, as a permitted use in the M -1 (Light Manufacturing
and Industrial) zone. This amendment will allow for this development to be
compatible with the areas that are zoned M -1 (Light Manufacturing and
Industrial). Several development standards will be included in conjunction with
the permitted use, to prevent poultry slaughtering and processing, with or without
retail sales, from jeopardizing the public safety, health, and welfare of the
community.
B. Circulation: Potential impacts to traffic and transportation depend
on the extent of a proposed project and local conditions. Each new development
project would be required to complete and submit a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
identifying any potential traffic impacts associated with the use at the proposed
location. Each new development will be required to satisfy off - street parking
requirements, as outlined in Section 17.84.100(B) of the Rosemead Municipal
Code. If an adequate parking supply is not provided, the project will not be
approved.
C. Housing: The proposed projects will not induce substantial new
population growth nor displace existing housing units or people. Since no part of
the project consists of housing units, the code amendment will not deplete
available land for housing.
D. Resource Management: The proposed development would be
located in a developed urban area, and as such, will not result in any impact
upon natural resources. Proposed developments will be required to provide
adequate landscaped areas in the overall site plan.
E. Noise: The proposed development will not generate any permanent
impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All operations of the proposed
land use will be required to be held inside a fully enclosed building. Noise levels
shall comply with the noise standards of the Rosemead Municipal Code. An
initial study was completed and its findings have determined that this land use
could not have a significant effect on the environment.
F. Public Safety: Impacts to law or fire enforcement, parks, and public
facilities are area or community specific. The proposed municipal code
amendment would not impact police, fire, or school services, and there would be
no change in demand for or use of public parks. The entire City of Rosemead is
located in Flood Zone C (flood insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any
flood hazard designations.
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of Municipal Code Amendment 08 -01,
amending Section 17.56.020(6) of the Rosemead Municipal Code to allow.
poultry slaughtering and processing, with or without retail sales, as a permitted
use in the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone. '
SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the
Planning Commission on November 17, 2008 by the following vote:
YES: CAM, GAY, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ AND VUU
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
SECTION 8. 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 17th day of ovember 2008
Danie Lopez, C Irma
cERTincA TION
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
17th day of November, 2008, by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
CAM, GAY, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ AND VUU
NONE
NONE
NONE
l
PROPOSED CITY OF ROSEMEAD
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY & NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ORIGINAL FILED
OCT 2 8.2008
LOSANGELES, COUNTY CLERK
LEAD AGENCY:
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
Contact: Matt Everling, City Planner
Phone: 626 - 569 -2141
APPLICANT:
Quan Phu
8932 Garvey Avenue
Rosemead, CA 91770
Phone: 626 - 255 -9118
DRAFT ND ISSUED ON OCTOBER 28, 2008
COMMENTS DUE BY NOVEMBER 17, 2008
ATTACHMENT
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
1. Project title:
Municipal Code Amendment 08 -01
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Rosemead, 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770
3. Contact person and phone number:
Matt Everting, City Planner 626 - 569 -2141
4. Project location:
Citywide Municipal Code Amendment
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
Quan Phu, 8932 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770
6. General Plan designation:
Mixed Use High Density Residential /Commercial (MHRC)
7. Zoning:
Light Manufacturing and Industrial (M -1)
8. Description of project:
The applicant has submitted a request to amend Zoning Ordinance Section 17.56.020, Light
Manufacturing and Industrial, Permitted Uses, to allow for poultry raising, slaughterhouse
and storage as a permitted use in the Light Manufacturing and Industrial (M -1) zoning
district. .
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
The project encompasses the entire City limits. Uses typically found within the M -1 zone are
industrial - related uses.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
SECTION 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
tY,.'°«� x" *i�r3fS Less Than', ~rih�E..3- iF�.
r rF }' r8r sj 1�� "P tentially'sa' =S gntfcant LessiThan �.�"< >; .,z;
"'... rrs w,.'f + 3j
y nr a 1y s�fi� 5 Slg ificamg Wtth. l` ;,�Stgrnficant�h Nor M
$f<<typiEny�vonmentalTlssuesr ++ yImpact, ?MttigaUonAH Impact Impact,:
s h ry R�44 +7.. 'M '' 'tl .?!, f � * s.c Tai -he ye e.�,xa rsr t X .rn +7�.r E X
i Aestheflcs r �k �s 7 K K Fb G n m
S�a�t`F .sC�? "t��Ata%� -4 "C ��.w�,tr�,;� tz�3 .i tv`+k�
.yi, }Y }�'' � .+ st.�..£r- d'"<Sa'f 'r zlx'`'bi't wn yH xiv �i ly9 arr fw, ' ,a• '�_,at .•f i '`w a
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ E] ® El
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock El El 1:1 outcroppings, and historic building within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ❑
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or ❑ ❑. ® ❑
nighttime views in the area?
.a„aaf c w a
esou u
+2��� -A nculture Rrces
a n det mi ning whether Imps to agn ulturalrresources aretslgnrficant,environte tail g
e cts�r ead'agencig gay -erer to theCalraomla Rg� cultural Land Evaluat�lontand Slte
Assessment Model (1997) prepared
Srr K k7 as A j �d x4c + vY 'N 5 s h ation as and `
byrthe CallromlaDepartment iof Consery
ripa
�aT�° *tom `9l�
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Import ance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland . ❑ . El 1:1
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or ❑ 1:1. El nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non- agricultural use?
a ?C;v.xi'Alf'Qatlty�j�`ps
n�0
'�U*iQ ifi"k
-fir Wfiere available the sr nlfreance cntenaiestab6shed�by the .tappllcable alr uall m"
g-=-� -,'^ c 4 tY3ac
r rmanagement or alr pollubon,eontrol distnctmay be- retied upon,to,make the following ,
`�d @terl/Iln t nse -... s,43�'"''7a`'1tim.e5`r
"'' 'P'"« •aat .� °a' S„!�,;" '`^ a T$x fi 't'rt' w 1 tl of FS
rF.i i aR$Gr 4de�+' F >A 4Te- i°+ P�-'Fa �y :Nq Ltv� _ <4�Y-Jfi'T t rv.. I n -
xySkWOU�CI the,�pro�eet."kiw.<'_,.. s,-�.i� ^•�FZ.�.t4�..°i:`ir �b',+ ...�,?tr.w'°
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of E) El ® E] the applicable air quality plan?
Environmental Checklist
ar�M' fWr4
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 ❑ ❑ ® El
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a El El ® ❑
substantial number of people?
Biological
WOUId the +pro /ect: » "' w }}i�ji k s ax SS, "'rc sk is N uR t S� t�,t K v i
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 ❑ El El 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 an any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional El El E] 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 ❑ E] El resources, such as a'tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
'f�•�.ry- 1, _'- iq�< P •-F� , uS� "�'.v^'�i -.if�k j- k +d���ii��.�� - .P"?Less Th2f1 � � `L `5v��s c+qy e
y% w. With � C~af yh uY�s 16+s5.� -.y ,7•.1'I.rYU �, -.�Ys` `� i f� art ��t =�^'?;tL r ri �;a�.
`s?'°i`�,;,,.Envirronmental Issues,` k+,� „��rGl� �;{�1_mpact ���;Mrt�gapon's,�k Impacf�j,,o,�ImpacE,F
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other ❑ ❑ ❑
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
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? qq
j6 tGeologykandrSOils{ * a4TS} oh �aF1r . }�! x�4L 1Tw �rrt TY'H
�Y',rr. rL, ✓, ,4it
- `.p. Would the pro /ect 'r,'t ,.off'' „i ..itn•.',iat�.,a NSA+�'FIYa �"e'i,r ?5 Y"�.sE, e .,F S a S
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, ❑ ❑ ® 0
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 El ® El
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 ❑ E] ® 1-1 result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
Environmental Checklist
Y 3 rx Cj+.y # lr Y+"5, �i- •+�.� --". §� ?6 y,. �'�'.s 3. �7 �<t11 }x ,.'F-r+...
xsCp �*;�1�a 3�c+ ij' i��, 4+i���,,J,F�-hr'414j�rSj+t''yw Y'��il -Sg fcant ^^S'gWU1C ¢nt �S�g fCailt �yrNo ti
' '"� ytiyj'+.Fit�,lrti actrdt- ^Mitt'a6ort''�Iln act Im ct�
�zor'rm
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building El ❑ ❑
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 Matenals s ,� c. Wt tE a
�I ffi,,r , .4� Fv �,.�.Wv r o- u... wldes:t- h} e ,,m ,, /ec';t - '�TZ, rc r "�x< _ � L �.T t r '-� '*C�'•"'�y ,n,� ,� i ` ftxt ? �l,.RY^ r' . 4�:r.es �; x� � �ry,��i� fi . � t �4 ' �1
m NO � ,4d e� p w A `ra� Y` T i r a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine ❑ El ® E) 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 ❑ El 19 El 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 ❑ ❑ E] hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency El El response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
'-, ,'iv in
Ni e�'�els ,+�. ``�,. w .', �'A{ ,� az' yr ��e + P,otentla lyl,s'S grn£C t�'Les si sh -an-t r
sx -,,p SignificantY, With 'rgmfca�t zNo
50 $:Mf.�� �;;Envgonmental Issue _s_.a„wt,,,_.3,,�.i,�„yImpeat4 Mrtga4ortImpact,� n 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?
Y ' 'T 1 T a "C } ✓a yV }J'i.�c f..t T; 7""Y i, e� v:'" �. 1D upsJ d'
�u�`• -n .i. M`. r o-� 1J 4. "3 " sy�L] 'y+J�i " � � 4y k.��� � *'eyewgcy t,y 'w��L a .U�r m �.,�xh r.F
�tWould the pro /ect r_ �,, e: ✓L M�T>�i�. r . r�°Fi�'k:�iis4S�v �i�� > .F61. t .r .ry- i"W..x�rd, a. , s' "n t"t. 1� .0 .�,
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 El ❑ El 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IR
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 ❑ El ❑
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ❑ ❑ ❑
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑
flood flows?
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
�- !�Jr+'�r � r 'k -� iw ` ill t r q,.si f° +rc x'S P�,Otentwally,�,31gnlflcant�u Less TFian x$ � �.
°�. psi +,�,�Le, �^ �.,,'ry"`� *�:4>{'� �"�narr'�R ✓:���' �Sigmficant r� >,�.�Wth";-`� �,�S�grnficant.� +Not,Y_
�a��u�� +� * Envlronmentallss_ ues�w !��,?;,;M+�'w,'`"e� :�'Impact,L Mlti attorr ,'ImpactzF,r;�lmpact °.
•:�.:r „an�x.. .,x_ ems,., _ .,��.�, g. .-.l
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', x a dSUse andtPlannmg r > 4
e'er .r M i f tii >•, r ... ~i nF1 i�+"`e{ �f Y�+"v � � i7.�,s <fra xe�� - � .'� -ia�xx +ly ��t-�� n�
w v a w 3 r5 F x
'rr >, Would'thefpm�ect-
a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific ❑ ❑ ❑
plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural communities ❑ ❑ ❑
conservation plan?
a11i Rt Y4 M'tfi1 �"$r a �'� tiSfi!"�Iti S n
.A1bmMmeraWesourcesl, �4 i 1 rr `ivy
F +3' 2f1 rx}:ri Sc fiN z fir.
WOUld;thepro /ect i, i + +iY� *mow 3 3%�Fdki+ F.V m zR e._..Fk.?!., S
r� +
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to ❑ ❑ ❑
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑
delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
7.. dS ,y ,p Yru �.a , l'+�Y f�Y"4Ehr y:.ff %.ry,(`iikzTi "'r4iY ,. wi rci`E'1t ndTfty+YW
K7� Nyoise; n; Yx ru�-:1 } s rft; '��'•rr � }f a 5rsw.``�cc'i1Y`� rd �5 Y��`' Fti '�'RJ''3s ”' it, tlFl. tv,Y1T 1., di,;
.1,"<' ro F tiC t^' r�u:vt r n,. -.ka S r+i.ss'e.• Yz° -r.. -b h,� .r. � � � - +..,,� ?�y,e r 'il .u, t
"�'�:,s�Would;the project result >In t �;,�Ta�"?vF�s�_ *� �; �, r✓��'.- '.:.���..fi,�.. , �.r?� +rr�� -,.. � _ �.
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or ❑ ❑ ❑
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or ❑ ❑ ❑
ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
Initial Study Environmental Checklist _
�H*-+} �t, n�' �iJrs "vA�v�y`£~+1`AtLel.[r.i'yL5S Th2r1- rY�s }�X£Y�ShY����uyx
'�(,^ iF } s'�+`�{ i`�potentiaYll'` Si mficant LesssTFian x•� ����
'�' -,std ""`'' '� ''" ' ��;w"$`��i'''�Im` act* �• �M ltlat!on,���`Ilmpact'.�'Impact
.r €s�,�a 4�Environmentallssuesw :w.s.g, �..
-
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the ❑ ❑ ❑
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people ❑ ❑ ❑
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
y, x xV .z yr kt y�,rgr(!r'✓•cS {z, +'`i€si
1'2 Population and Mousm + °
n :+� Rv� a•r? v.., fx. a
.P u r a. p r .r'$�ii tp'.+4.a 'k r' c" fi s 5�.v� `4 t x t +`� •,`M
5 "m•-i H nA4p.tu'v.
Would�the roect�_
a), Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (e.g., by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly ❑ ❑ ❑
(e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑
replacement housing elsewhere?
f. e v r % ,Er rail ,�suaM`s a -S.�ii ;�Ft, cami F"� rJi;• .y�i '� %T:Yi ir.n r.-Fa
,JJ-3 I1C,$e1VIC-
-gy p VIS on oPhe o ph'y ically¢alteiedig eminen al faiht es need for new or phys cally s }
A p
y� altered govemmental;faclhbes the<constrocf�o� of�whlch Auld caus�e�slgn�ica�nt,� „�� ” �M
K; en I nmentalklinpacts"'In o of o maintain `acre tattle service raAtios response times or" r �?
���.A� -other perfom?anse ob�ec6'vesrfor any of the pubilc`%`services�'� `�,I"�3 �'� v "��f ��_ ;,' -� �.`f
a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
' i4 ;Recteatl t , . � ' y °rte n WON
O w ks '«ka la 's...- ��j . .ir✓ . . T ` .f : 's ` + , ,4.�.n,s ( ;P aF�.- .'•, -+Rft+'ry vi ' .,. a '4'�:��c '. +: T-.? w
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 Study Environmental Checklist
W
MILga6on_`- ��Impact,a ''Impacta
15TranspoltatlonRrafficy� x�s� xnx „ ��� x
P
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 ❑ ❑ El dangerous intersections) or incompatible IR
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 El El E] transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
v16 H , Utiir ui tld e s 7a+�n
th Wo. i _ e c p` dm rfo $jeec#r✓t Ve t ,." I Ce O Srrayt' x ss t >e9R" w l5s..., .i>� r.E� t S k v?, Z' i ¢ Y.`t,P�'fi1 ,C ZzMAs''� 1 � ro{'{ 1 '''4�+,E+riv '' +- <�i-• r^n' r sa,.P ,+:r �, , � �.5+ , x �r� x .� q s r�„R�, ' +.o �n?�
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, ❑ ❑ ❑
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ❑
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing ❑ ❑ El entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
m
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
�4 � '�r °x4 �.4 i �a� w d�•���a aE-�A K s w'u a v, � t.Skga x" 1.s
�^'R�f r -s.1- 4K) "P a✓`� ,r v a d , � �t asrw -
�� ,�r,u,�,�ty;�!ajEnvi[onmentaf Issues s�� x�y �.�, �rlmpacf 4f.�, Mit_igat,on'r 4 Impact+f�;lrnpactti
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it has ❑ ❑ El
capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient _
permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ® ❑
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid ❑ ❑ ❑
waste?
�77hMandatory Findmg$,of Slgmflcan ?y f+ z �q pAd 1 6{ ° Al v a ) y i
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 El El El adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
11
Initial Study Environmental checklist
The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed use would
not result in a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the preceding checklist and
supported by substantial evidence provided in this document.
❑ Aesthetics Agriculture
❑ Resources El Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils
❑ Hazards & Hazardous HydrologyNVater
Materials ❑ Quality ❑ Land Use /Planning
❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise
❑ Population /Housing
❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation
❑ Transportation/Traffic
❑ Utilities /Services
Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
T2
Initial Study Environmental Check list
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 �Z Lo 9
13
Discussion of
Initial Study Environmental Evaluation
SECTION 2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. AESTHETICS
1.a. (Less than significant) The mountains, golf course, and river do not represent
unusual, unique, or singularly spectacular scenic resources. Potential effects will be limited
to properties in the immediate vicinity of new development, and will be subject to the City's
required development standards to limit visual impacts. Thus, impact will be less than
significant.
1.b. (No impact) No State scenic highways traverse Rosemead. Thus, no-impact will
result.
1.c.(No impact) The Land Use Element of the General Plan contains goals, policies,
and implementation measures intended to improve community -wide appearance and the
character of Rosemead. These regulations will work to creating developments that do not
visually impact the surrounding area. Thus, this issue does not require further examination.
1.d. (Less than significant) City review of development applications includes the review of
building materials and lighting plans to prevent adverse light and glare on adjacent
properties. This practice will continue through the implementation of General Plan policies:
Thus, impact will be less than significant.
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
2.a through 2.c. (No impact) The Proposed Project vicinity consists of commercial,
industrial and residential use. It is not anticipated that the area can be or will be used for
agriculture activities and there are no nearby agricultural uses that would be affected. In
addition, the Proposed Project does not lie in or around any land designated as 'Important
Farmland in California' (Department of Conservation, 2006).
3. AIR QUALITY
3.a. through 3.e. (Less than significant) Within the Proposed Project area, the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) have responsibility for preparing an Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP), which addresses federal avid state Clean Air Act requirements. The AQMP details
goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality and establishes thresholds for daily
operational emissions. The construction and operation of the proposed project is not
15
,I initial
anticipated to exceed the AQMP's daily emissions
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP
regional air quality plans would occur.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Discussion or
Environmental Evaluation
and would therefore not
As such, no impacts to the local or
4.a. through 4.f (No impact) Due to the urbanized character of Rosemead, the extent of
biological resources is limited to species typically found in an urban setting. The City
contains no sensitive wildlife habitat or strands of native vegetation. No impact regarding
these issues is expected; therefore, no further analysis is required.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
5.a. through 5.d. (No impact) The City is built out and does not contain any known
archaeological or paleontological resources. However, this does not mean that such
resources can be unearthed during new construction or earth movement. If any
archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered during future construction
pursuant to General Plan policy, the significance of such resources would be determined
and addressed through CEQA documentation as part of an individual project. At the
programmatic level, impact is considered less than significant.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
6.a.i through 6.a.iii (Less than significant) Per City and State building codes, all new
development will be required to incorporate appropriate design and construction measures
to guard against ground shaking hazards. Compliance with these existing seismic safety
building standards will reduce potential ground shaking hazards to below a level of
significance.
6.a.iv.. (No impact) Rosemead sits on an alluvial fan that slopes gently away from the San
Gabriel Mountains. Throughout the City, the terrain can be characterized as generally flat,
with no hillsides or other topographic features where landslides could occur. Thus, no
impact will result.
6.b and 6.c (Less than significant) Very little area remains where native soils are exposed.
Development that will occur will result in new buildings and improvements replacing existing
buildings and site improvements. Construction will be required to comply with City
ordinances that require erosion control. Impact will be less than significant.
6.d and 6.e (No impact) All new development is required to connect to the sanitary
sewer system. No septic systems will be permitted; thus, no impact will result.
16
Discussion of
Initial Study Environmental Evaluation
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7.a. through 7.c. (Less than significant) Future development of poultry slaughterhouses
may produce hazardous materials and waste such as urine, excrement, and blood.
However, all such activity is and will be required to comply with the numerous Federal,
State, and local regulations developed to safeguard the public against the hazards
associated with such activity within an urban environment. Continued enforcement of these
regulations will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. .
7.d. (Less than significant). According to the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control, no sites or businesses in Rosemead are included on the list of sites requiring
extensive investigation or clean -up activities due to hazardous materials. If any
development occurs on a site determined to be contaminated, such project will involve
appropriate remedies. Impact is less than significant.
7.e and 7.f (No impact) No airport, land use plan applies to any properties within
Rosemead. Thus, no impact will result.
7.g. (No impact) The Public Safety Element addresses emergency response and to
provide continued high service levels. Thus, no impact will result.
7.h. (No impact) As a built out community, the risk of wildfires is. extremely low. Thus,
no impact will result.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
8.a. (Less than significant) All new development will be required to comply with existing
water quality standards and waste discharge regulations set forth by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Each project will also be required to comply with National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Regulation compliance will
result in a less than significant impact.
8.b. (No impact) Existing water management policies ensure that providers drawing
upon the Main San Gabriel Basin do not cumulatively remove more than the Operating Safe
Yield, as determined yearly, without replenishing the groundwater supply with imported
recharge water. As such, no impact will result.
8.c. and 8.d. (No impact) Development in the City will not alter the course of the Rio
Hondo river. As such, no impact will result.
8.e. (Less than significant) All new development will be required to comply with existing
water quality standards and waste discharge regulations set.forth by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Each project will also be required to comply with National
17
Discussion of
Environmental Evaluation
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Regulation compliance will
result in a less than significant impact.
8.f. through 8.j. (No impact) With regards to water quality, each individual development
project will be required to comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements. Regulation compliance will result in a less than significant impact.
Portions of the City lie within inundation areas, however, the possibility of dam failure is
considered remote. Regional agencies work to ensure flood control systems are maintained
to guard against widespread impact in the event of unusual storm events. Ongoing
inspection and maintenance activities result in no impact.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
9.a. (No impact) The proposed use will exist in areas that are predominately industrial
or intensive commercial. These areas currently divide the City, thus no impact will result.
9.b. (No impact) The proposed use will not conflict with any other applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
impact, thus no impact will result.
9.c. (No impact) No Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Natural Community
Conservation Plan (NCCP) exist within Rosemead, thus no impact will result. .
10. MINERAL RESOURCES
10.a. and 10.b. (No impact) The State has not identified and significant recoverable
mineral resources, no mineral extraction activities are permitted within City limits, thus no
impact will result.
11. NOISE
11.a. through 11.d. (No impact) The City requires that all operations of the proposed
land use be held inside an enclosed building, with the exception of outdoor storage. The
proposed land use is not expected to generate noise in excess of standards all under
the City's Noise Ordinance. Each individual development project will. be examined via
CEQA to demonstrate compliance with adopted noise limits.
11.e. and 11.f. (No impact) The closest airport is in El Monte, approximately one mile east
of the eastern City boundary line. The proposed land use would have no impact on airport
operations or noise levels at the airport, nor would it impact noise exposure resulting from
activities at the airport. No noise impacts have been identified, thus no impact will result.
J 18
Discussion or
ital Evaluation
Initial
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
12.a. through 12.c. (No impact) The proposed Municipal. Code Amendment would not
change the acreage or distribution of land uses within the City. There would be no
displacement of existing housing or residents, and the proposed land use would impact the
availability of affordable housing, thus no impact will result.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
13.a. through 13.e. (No impact) The proposed Municipal Code Amendment would not
impact police, fire, or school services, and there would be no change in demand for or use
of public parks, thus no impact will result.
14. RECREATION
14.a. and 14.b. (No impact) The proposed Municipal Code Amendment would not impact
existing or future recreational facilities, and there would be no change in demand for or use
of public parks, thus no impact will result.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
15.a. and 15.b. (Less than significant) Each new development project would be
required to complete and submit a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) identifying any potential
traffic impacts associate with the use at the proposed location, thus impacts would be less
than significant.
15.c. (No impact) No airport land use plan applies to any area of Rosemead. The
closest airport is in the City of El Monte, thus no adverse impact will result.
15.d. and 15.e. (No impact) The roadway system in Rosemead is fully developed, with little
opportunity to add new road segments. Any plan to improve existing roadways for future
traffic and emergency vehicles will be analyzed through the site plan review and CEQA
processes as individual project emerge, thus no adverse impact will result.
15.f. (No impact) Each new development will be reviewed for compliance with the City's
parking standards, and will not be permitted to develop a project that provides an
inadequate parking supply.
15.g. (No impact) The General Plan includes supportive policies that address alternative
modes of transportation, thus no adverse impact will result.
19
initial
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Discussion of
tat Evaluation
16.a (Less than significant) Al new development will be required to comply with existing
wastewater treatment requirements set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), thus the impact will be less than significant.
16.b through 16.g. (No impact) The proposed Municipal Code Amendment would not
change the acreage or distribution of land uses within the City. Demands on storm drain
systems, water services, and wastewater treatment would be as outlined in the General
Plan. No impacts on utilities and services are foreseen, thus no adverse impact will result.
16.f (Less than significant) The amount of solid waste originating from Rosemead
appears very small relative to the volumes accepted annually at each of the regional
landfills, thus impact is less than significant.
16.g (No impact) All new development will be required to comply with Federal, State,
and local statues and regulations related to the disposal of solid waste, thus no adverse
impact will result.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF. SIGNIFICANCE
17.a. (No impact) As discussed in item 4 above, Rosemead contains no sensitive
wildlife habitat. As discussed in item 5 above, no cultural resources have been identified,
and adequate measures are in place to protect such resources that may be discovered as
part of individual development projects.
17.b. (No impact) Analysis conducted for this document indicates that the Municipal
Code Amendment would not have the potential to cause potentially significant effects on
either a direct or a cumulative basis.
17.c. (No impact) Analysis. conducted for this document indicates that the
implementation of the Municipal Code Amendment will not cause direct or indirect
substantial adverse effects on human beings.
20
SECTION 3
REFERENCES
City of Rosemead, General Plan, 14 October 2008.
City of Rosemead, General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, 14 October 2008.
City of Rosemead, General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Appendix A— Notice of
Preparation/Initial Study, 13 November 2007.
City of Rosemead, Municipal Code Amendment, Initial Study and Negative Declaration, 5
February 2007.
21.
Minutes of the
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 17, 2008
The regular. meeting of the Rosemead Planning Commission was `called to order by Chairman
Lopez at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Vuu
INVOCATION: Chairman Lopez
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: Commissioners Cam, Gay, Vuu, Vice - Chairman Kunioka,
Chairman Lopez
OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Yin, Assistant City Manager Saeki, Acting Planning Services
Manager Bermejo, Associate Planner Agaba, Commission Secretary Lockwood.
1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Jim Flournoy - expressed his concern of water system emergencies that may occur after a
major earthquake.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes - November 3, 2008
Vice - Chairman Kunioka had two corrections (1) on page 2 and (1) on page 8
Commissioner Ron Gay made a motion, seconded by Vice- Chairman Todd Kunioka, to
approve the minutes of November 3, 2008 with corrections.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Cam, Gay, Kunioka, Lopez, Vuu
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Minutes offovember 17, 2008
Page 1 o(4 ATTACHMENT G
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 08 -07 - Mai Ma has submitted a Conditional Use Permit
application proposing to construct a mini -mall development, consisting of a 3,000 square -
foot of commercial building and a 1,293 square -foot restaurant located at 3309 San Gabriel
Boulevard in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. (George Agaba, Associate Planner)
PC RESOLUTION 08.29 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 08 -07, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MNI-
MALL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF A. 3,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL
BUILDING AND A 1,293 SQUARE -FOOT RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 3309 SAN
GABRIEL BOULEVARD IN THE C3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) ZONE. (APNS: 5287 -028-
017 AND 5287 - 028 -015)
Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE
Conditional Use Permit 08 -07 and adopt Resolution 08 -29 for a period of one (1) year,
subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
Terence Kwok - architect of the project explained to the Planning Commission the drought
resistant landscaping plan, operating hours, seating capacity, solar panel lighting, parking, and
design of restaurant.
Mai Me ,owner of the restaurant gave the hours of operation.
Brian Lewin - resident questioned if Agenda Packets would be available to public on the.website
soon. Mr. Lewin also inquired what type of trash enclosures the restaurant would be using and if
they would be self - closing and self - locking.
Commissioner Allan Vuu made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chairman Todd Kunioka, for
approval of Conditional Use Permit 08.07 and adoption of Resolution 08.29 for a period of
one (1) year.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Cam, Gay, Kunioka, Lopez, Vuu
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
B. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 08 -01 - Mr.. Quan Phu, owner of the Cal Poultry
slaughtering and retail facility located at 8932 Garvey Avenue, has submitted an application
requesting a municipal code amendment to allow poultry slaughtering and processing, with
or without retail sales, as permitted use in the Light Manufacturing and Industrial (M -1)
zone. (Sheri Bermejo, Acting Planning Services Manager )
PC RESOLUTION 08.30 - 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
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Minutes of November 17, 2008
Page 2 of 4
AND ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 08 -01 TO ALLOW LIVE POULTRY
SLAUGHTERING AND PROCESSING, WITH OR WITHOUT RETAIL SALES, AS A
PERMITTED USE IN THE M -1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL) ZONE.
Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution
No. 08 -30, a resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Negative
Declaration and ADOPT Ordinance No. 868, modifying the zoning code with respect to
permitted uses in the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone.
Kamen Lei - architect stated the improvements that are needed will be costly to owner and will be
favorable for the community, as the improvements will. improve the facade and help improve the
odor issues of the poultry business.
Long Phu - nephew of owner stated that the name of the rendering company that the Cal Poultry
uses is Coldwest and that the poultry business has 15 employees. The poultry business will still be
operating during construction. Mr. Phu explained some of the equipment has been installed to
control some of the issues that have been brought up and named a few agencies that do periodic
inspections of the facility.
Adolpho Ponce - resident expressed that he lives one block from this facility and is disappointed
with the way the owner and City have taken care of odor issues and what goes into the storm drain
from the poultry business.
Jean Hall - resident expressed that she was appalled to know that we had a poultry business in
Rosemead and is concerned with what goes into our sewer systems and does not want this
Municipal Code Amendment to be approved.
Phyllis Tury • resident expressed that she had many complaints.with the poultry business, such as
foul odors, washing of poultry blood and feces into our sewer system, dead chickens in cages,
bacteria, traffic, and feels that the business has outgrown the facility and that is why the illegal
large structure was added.
Brian Lewin • resident questioned what the zoning of the poultry business, what exactly needed a
Code Amendment, and asked if there was a storm water clarifier on the site.
Vice - Chairman Todd Kunioka made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ron Gay,. to
ADOPT Resolution No. 0830, a resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE
the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Ordinance No. 868.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Cam, Gay, Kunioka, Lopez, Vuu
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Minutes of November 17, 2008
Page 3 of 4,
5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS
NONE
6. MATTERS FROM THE CITY PLANNER & STAFF
Sheri Bermejo will be the Acting Planning Services Manager, please contact her for any
Planning issues and Brian Saeki will also assist as needed.
Brian Saeki announced the December 1, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting will be cancelled
due to lack of quorum.. Next meeting will be December 15, 2008.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Lopez adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 9:25 p.m.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 15, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.
Daniel Lopez
Chairman
ATTEST:
Rachel Lockwood
Commission Secretary
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Minutes of November 17, 2008
Page 4 of 4