CC - Item 3A - Mintues 12-16-08 - Transcript for ConsiderationO 12/16/08 City Council Meeting consideration of amending ordinance to allow poultry
slaughtering in the Manufacturing Zone. Verbatim transcript prepared by Margaret Clark.
tape 2 side 2.
Oliver Chi.,city manager Our staff monitors things-typically if they catch these things
they contact the county and have county inspectors come out and cite individuals who
are in violation of storm drain protection related ordinances. It's not something that city
staff currently is doing; it's something that upon farther research that if certain training
and certifications are received by staff, that's something that staff potentially could
engage in and utilize to more effectively monitor at this locations. Of course it's not
something we could just snap our fingers and ...we'd have additional operational issues,
...but that is definitely one of the possibilities. As it relates to additional monitoring of
that particular facility, we definitely can put together an operations plan as it relates to
how we're going to monitor them, when we're going to monitor them, and how we report
that information back to the city council for additional follow-up is something that we
can also do ...and depending on the direction from the. council, we'll take the appropriate
steps to put something like that together.
Steven Lv: I've lived in Rosemead since I was 3-.I've lived in that area since I moved
here to Rosemead when I walked home from school all the time, odor was always an
issue, runoff was always an issue; that definitely needs to be dealt with. And I hope that
• the decision of the council needs to be towards snaking sure the people that live in that
area are comfortable with that area. How does proposition 2 affect this?
Chi Prop 2 as it relates to..
Clark: Free range chicken-
ChLMs Bermijo has done extensive research and she's told me that the chickens in the
coop there are closely packed together; so much so that when they eat they seem to
shuffle-.the food's only on one side. So, obviously that would be a violation of the voters'
intent when prop 2 was approved. As it relates operationally how the owner would deal
with that particular issue, that would be up to him to comply. And if he can't comply,
then he can't operate his business
Lv: I also just want you to know, that I do think that if donations were received, and I
don't know, I haven't had a chance to look at the documents, but anybody on the council
that received donations from this business I feel do need to recuse themselves, it's a
conflict of interest.
Sandra Armenta: Good evening,councilmembers, Mayor Tran, Rosemead
residents.... I'm kind of concerned on how some of the concilmembers.. I believe in order
to put to rest any..councihnembers who received any contributions from Cal-Poultry, or
anyone affiliated with Cal Poultry should refrain from voting. I believe it's a conflict of
interest. According to Schedule A, Monetary contributions received as of yet,
Councilmember Low received $2000 from Quan Phu, on Jan 11, 2007, which is the
owner of Cal-Poultry. Mayor Tran , he also received $1000 on Dec. 1, 2006 from
someone from the same residence as Quan Phu. Again, I feel this is a conflict of interest
and I do believe you should refrain from voting on this issue.
• Audience: applause
• Tran: Anyone else wishing to speak on this issue? Seeing none,
I will close the public hearing.
Chi. Planning staff will make the presentation.
Bermi'o Planning staff.: Mr. Quan Phu, owner of the Cal-Poultry slaughtering and
processing facility located at 8932 Garvey Ave has submitted an application requesting a
municipal code amendment to allow poultry slaughtering and processing which would
allow retail sales in the M-1 light_manufacturing/industrial zone. Cal-Poultry has operated
in the city for the last 17 years. Shortly after they were issued a business license to
operate, the city council adopted an ordinance which deleted the use in the municipal
code, thus making the Cal-Poultry a legal non-conforming use. Over the last 2 years, the
business operation has received several violation notices, both from the city as well as
from the Los Angeles County public agencies Citations were issued mainly for unsightly
outdoor storage, stormwater 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 the non-conforming uses to expand their
business in any way, the city is not able to permit the building renovations that would
resolve the violations that the business is facing. If this amendment is approved, Mr. Phu
will be submitting plans for a major facility renovation which will include installation of
an air filtration system and other amenities that will allow for a more efficient process for
the business. In order to properly analyze and evaluate this application, staff carefully
scrutinized the proposed use, along with potential impacts to the community. To further
understand the use, staff visited the facility, reviewed staff from the State
Department-Poultry and surveyed other cities. Approving this municipal code
• amendment may help discourage the slaughtering of poultry on residential properties
within the city limits, which could increase without this code amendment. Staff also
believes that permitting this use only within industrial areas would have the least impact
on the community as a whole. However, it is important to note that poultry slaughtering
and processing use poses some major impacts, which could 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 to noise, odor, waste, aesthetics, parking issues...On Nov. 17
Planning commission... unanimously recommended approval of the project to the City
council.:.
Low: Yes, listening to many of the speakers, I have interesting thoughts. I reviewed the
proposal and I also reviewed the timelines of this project. So the timeline I have is the
Cal-Poulty got their 1 n certif of occupancy in 1991. Now, at that time Mrs. Clark and
Mr. Taylor was on the council. So, I was kind of bothered by, you know, we had a lot of
speakers come up tonight basically to chew out Mayor Tran. Now I don't quite
understand that. Now if we have this Poultry business and there are residents that have
been here along time, 17 years ago, why didn't you guys come up and oppose the
project? At that time Mrs. Clark and Mr Taylor were on the council. They're the ones that
approved, or at least they were part of the approval.
Clark: I wasn't on the council
• Low. So, OK, if you were not on there in 1991.
2
• Clark: Actually, I voted to shut it down in 1991.
Low: OK and, according to the timeline here they requested in 1997 they enter an impact
agreement, and the city asked them to pay $18,000. If the city has requested this business
to pay $18,000 in order to continue to operate, why didn't we do something back then?
What I'm trying to say is, this business been in City of Rosemead for 17 years, we have
17 years to do something about it. Yet, Mrs. Clark and Mr. Taylor were on the council.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, would you please clarify for her that Mrs. Clark was not on the
council when that was passed. She just told her, so reinforce it please.
Tran: Well, basically, she's saying is that she's been ...in 1997 when they were in
business.
Taylor: No, she's claiming that Mrs. Clark was there when this business came in.
Tran: Maybe, the Planning commission. I don't know. Go ahead, Mrs. Low.
Low: I'm just saying, well, how long has Mrs. Clark been on the council?
Clark: March 1991. It was already established. And we passed an ordinance to outlaw
poultry slaughtering at the end of 1991....
Low: Ok so when they passed it did we have the opportunity... transition, to ask them to
leave the city right?
Rachel Richman, Attorney: Right, and I believe that it was considered a legal non-
conforming use at the time.
Low: Right and the city didn't ask them to leave. I'm just saying that we had an
opportunity back them, is that..
Richman: Well, again I wasn't there either, but we did have options at that time. That we
• did or did not choose to take at that time.
Low: Right. So the city chose not to do anything back then. I'm just saying that the
problem has existed and like Mrs. City attorney this problem has existed for a long time,
the runoff, the smell has been happening for a long time. Why didn't the city do anything
about it until now? We have speakers come up and chew out Mayor Tran for him not
doing anything about it. He's been on the council for 4 years. I'm just saying that this
problem has been around for a long time.
Audience: he wants to increase the business.
Low: OK so then I say, what is our options? So I say, let's say, we don't want to approve
this. Right now it's legal non-conforming. That means that we can't do anything about it,
we could ask them to leave the city but that, what does that mean?The city has to pay, is
that correct? Is there cost involved if we have to ask this business to leave the city.
Richman: Well, again it depends if this ordinance is not adopted then they can't make
any changes to their business. And if they can't make any changes to their business,
they're going to continue to have some violations and there's the possibility of being shut
down.
Low: OK. So, I'm looking at, if we don't do anything, They continue to operate this
business the way it is. This business is old, they've been there for 17 years, they're going
to continue to smell, they're going to continue to..the facility is not able to operate in a
better situation, just because the facility is old. That's why they are asking to make this
modification. Ok so what is my other option. One option is to operate as they are now,
which nobody is going to be happy. The residents, the neighborhood's not going to be
happy. What is my other option as a city?
• Audience: Close them down.
3
• Low: OK, close them down. Who's gonna pay? Do you think the city is just gonna go
and shut them down? What are the consequences to the city if we just go and shut them
down?
Audience: What if other poultry slaughtering industries want to come in and you have 4
Poultry slaughtering businesses?
Low: I want to address one thing at a time. I want to understand what is my consequences
as a city?
Saeki: Councilmember Low, uh your options are correct. Well, you mentioned the first
option is do nothing. That's an option. The second option is to exercise your ability to
amortize this business out of existence. That is laid out in the code. You have that ability.
As far as my understanding, none of us has gone through that process and so we don't
know what kind of financial ramifications that would bring, because the process is not
clearly laid out in the zoning code
Low: So and also I see that because for the past 17 years the city has been allowing them
to operate, the city has given them the impact agreement, has given them the permit to
allow them to have outdoor storage, meaning that the city has been allowing them to
operate so I'm looking at there's a good chance, if I'm the business owner you the city
have allowed me to operate all this time and all of a sudden you're telling me to shut me
down.
Audience: that's a violation, that's a danger to the children's health. You've been aware
of it for 3 years.
Tran: I'm going to allow Mrs. Low.
• Low: So I want to first understand what are the options for the city. If we shut them
down most likely they're going to say, You've let me operate all this time they turn
around and sue the city. And it's going to cost the city money to handle this lawsuit. I
think it's a possibility that could happen. So I'm just looking at, what are our options.,
what is the right thing to do
Audience: Close them down... It wouldn't be the fast time the city has had a lawsuit.
Low: And I totally understand the concern of health. But right now is not the best
situation. Again the facility is notAt smells, it's dirty. So here you have a business owner
coming in and saying, You know what, the business is getting old, I'm willing to remodel
it to make it better. That way, the city saves money, we don't need to worry about getting
sued, the city doesn't have to spend money to do amortization to get this about, The
residents' environment can improve because they now have remodeled-it to make it
cleaner to reduce the odor. So I don't see a problem supporting this. What is my option?
Let it operate the way it is. And I don't think that is the best option.
Audience: If we had 2 attorneys here maybe they could give you the answer.
Clark:l'll address that to start with. I believe a legal non-conforming use can be shut
down in 3 years. Isn't that what you just said?
Saeki: That is the language in the code, yes.
Clark: That's right. So..anybody can sue, I can sue you for, whatever, but that doesn't
mean the suit will stand. We have a legal right to shut them down because they are a
legal, non-conforming. Now what I find is just kind of interesting, Polly, you say, Why
didn't the city do anything all this time and then you said the city can't do anything,
• That's double-speak in my opinion.
Low: I'm sorry I didn't hear you your last part.
S
• Clark: You're saying, "Why didn't the city do anything, they've been here for 17 years,
why didn't the city do anything? And then you turn around and say the city can't do
anything so therefore we have to let them do this, we have to let them improve, because
our hands are tied. I've heard this many times at the planning commission. "Oh our hands
are tied, it's a catch 22, we just have to do this because if we don't, they'll just continue
to operate. NO, we can amortize them out of existence.
Low: So Mrs. Clark, how come that didn't happen many years ago?
Clark: Well, 19..2006 we have right in our packet "Notice to Shut down Business"
Low: No, even before that, when we changed the municipal code. That was the time that.
they could have shut them down.
Clark: Yeah, I don't know why it wasn't but that's not the issue. You're saying we didn't
do anything and we can't do anything. That's where I have an issue
Now, what I would like to do is concentrate on what I am thinking is one of the big
issues, the problem with this. You have said, and the planning commissioners said,
"we're in a catch 22, we have to do this because otherwise they'll keep operating a
smelly business, basically." Now, what they're doing, is not just letting that business
improve itself so it won't be smelly. That's the implication of all this conversation. But
what this is actually doing, this ordinance tonight actually is affecting every
manufacturing facility in the city; and I find it kind of interesting that the planning
commission did not have in front of them in their packet, a map of the city, the zoning
map and we have it in ours and you'll notice there are 3 areas that are M-I
manufacturing. And the area we're discussing mostly is on Garvey Avenue. Do you
• know where the map is? Can you pull one up? The map..
Because I think everyone should be able to see if you put it up..
Matt Hawksworth, Assistant City Manager: Not easily.
Clark: Pardon me?._All this wonderful technology we have.
Chi: Would the council like to take a brief recess (while we put the map up)
Clark: No
Taylor: Let's get the old stuff back where we put it up on the board over here.
Clark: To show the area... I find this incredible, we have this wonderful system, we've
put out a lot of money..
Hawksworth: Well, if you could just give us a few minutes we can do it, all we're saying
is..
Clark: Well, why didn't you already, I mean what we're discussing tonight is a change in
use in the entire manufacturing zone of the city.
Map goes up) Unfortunately it's black and white, and you won't be able to tell from the
color system. But you need to scroll down because what we're discussing is Garvey Ave.
from Delta to the eastern border of the city is manufacturing right now.and it's purple on
my map. (pointing to map.) But what is interesting is there's also, this whole triangle up
here by the Mission Inn, that is also manufacturing zone. And also over here by Temple
city on the northeast section of the city is also manufacturing. So what this ordinance
does is everywhere in the manufacturing zone, slaughterhouses will be allowed.
Low: I totally agree with Mrs. Clark. We will not support another slaughterhouse in the
city so I, just have to say, so I want to ask staff what can we do.
Audience: Let her finish what she's saying
40 Low: OK but I just want to show my support for what she's saying.
• Clark: Well, I appreciate this but..
Tran: Go ahead Mrs. Clark
Clark: The problem is that this ordinance is for allowing slaughterhouses in the M-1
zone. And you cannot-I discussed this with the attorney today, you can't just spot zone,
You can't say, well, we're gonna let Cal Poultry expand
Chi:. Right.
Clark:.. because they are legal non-conforming at this time, it is not a permitted use in
the manufacturing zone. And I served on the Planning Commission for 3 years and I
remember the issue of spot zoning, where you can't just say, we're going to do this, not
here, and then somebody else says, "well you let him do it, you have to let me do if'.
There's grounds for a lawsuit. But what this ordinance does is, in fact tonight I don't
think we're even giving Cal Poultry their permit. I think my understanding is, tonight this
ordinance is before us, first reading, it has to be brought back for a second reading, and
then if it is passed, Cal Poultry will have to submit their plans on how they want to
expand. Is that correct?
Tran: They're not expanding, they're just-renovating
Clark: Well, they're adding a filtration system on the ..they're altering the building. If
they weren't they wouldn't have to come to us.
Saeki: Correct.
Clark: So, this whole ordinance is allowing slaughterhouses in the manufacturing zone.
And I what I find very very disturbing with the Negative Declaration that was prepared
and it wasn't our current staff it was our former planning director, Matt Everling, but it
• actually states that this change in use in the manufacturing zone is consistent with our
land use. And that's not true. The General Plan, on Nov. 14 this council majority
approved a change of land use for that whole area, that entire area on Garvey from Delta
to our eastern border is in the new General Plan as Mixed Use
Residential/Commercial?Commercial?
Saeki: Correct
Clark: So, 4 or 5 story condo's above retail. All right. So, that is not consistent with
slaughterhouses! I'm sorry. So to say that in the Negative Declaration and be able to get
away with that being the city's duty that we did our little environmental study, is wrong,
it's totally wrong. It blows me away that this is even in there. And it actually states the
planning commission made finding that the municipal code is consistent with the
Rosemead General Plan, and it's not. And I've proven that. The General Plan
Designation on page 2 of the initial study environmental checklist - it lists the different
issues and it says "General Plan Designation Mixed Use High Density Residential
Commercial MHRC So, just because our zoning is not in conformity yet-Now it's my
understanding that a city has 2 years from the date of changing the General Plan to bring
their zoning into conformity. So there's this little window that it looks to me like "let's
just try to sneak in this discrepancy because we haven't changed the zone yet." So you
have this window of time before the zone gets changed. And so businesses can come in to
that manufacturing zone and we can have poultry slaughterhouses anywhere along i
Garvey, anywhere up there by the Mission Inn, anywhere by the eastern portion there.
Now, also the disturbing thing is that the manufacturing zones, the other 2 will not be
• changed, so they will stay manufacturing. So that means that it won't be just this little
window like on Garvey for them. It will in perpetuity they will be legal to have a
7
• slaughterhouse in the manufacturing zones. And it will not become legal non-
conforming, they can be forever. And then you would have a lawsuit because they would
have grounds to sue. So I find this very disturbing that there's a document that states that
it's conforming, and it's not. That uh, here's a couple more statements: there's a checklist
that states that it conforms to the land use and it doesn't have any effect. Another issue
that I have a problem with on it is it states, uh, the question on this Negative Declaration
asks if there's any impact on the environment and it says "little to none." or something.
Well, in my opinion, I'm on a lot of water issue boards and the issue of stormwater runoff
is huge and it's still developing, as to what cities have to do. And when they wash these
feathers and blood, and whatever, fecal matter down the storm drain that is illegal and
that is going to affect the environment. Another issue that I have a real problem with is
the avian flu is spread through saliva and fecal matter from the birds, and it's bird to bird
on surfaces that are not clean And the fear from this memo that I believe that you had in
your box from the Center for Disease Control actually states that people have died from
the avian flu and they're young people, they're children and young people so they're not
just older people whose immune system might be compromised or whatever, and they're
very concerned about the development of a pandemic bird flu...Cal poultry that we're
talking about tonight does not have a good record of cleanliness, of obeying the issues
that they were supposed to. And I'd like to read the different things that have happened
over the years.
u
,"A
•
8
• VACANT STRUCTURE 8942 Garvey- "you must cease use of the vacant structure
..until you re-apply and an occupancy permit is processed.
4/27/06L.A. County department of Public Works-Hazardous Materials
System"Operating Permit-Local sewer-Status: Suspended.
"Remarks: Note: Verbal to clean s.w. catchbasin at N/E corner of parkin lot. It
smelled, had some water & trash/debris. (underline that of Inspector Jesse Vazquez)
5/4/06 City of Rosemead NOTICE OF INTENT TO CLOSE BUSINESS. "On April
26,2006 you were sent a letter notifying you that you were in violation(s) of Rosemead
Municipal code..That letter was a formal request to correct all the conditions that were in
violation ..as of today you have failed to comply with our request ...If you do not obtain
your required Business License by May 10 2006 your business will be Ordered Closed"
"Now this is when some of the council majority were on the councir'
10/5/06City of Rosemead- Stop Work and Corrections Notice: for the following
violations:
-interior expansion, modification, and alteration work completed without approvals or
permits from City..or CA Dept of Food and Agriculture.
-an opening that has been cut through the east exterior property line block wall, providing
access into the structure on the adjacent property to the east in violation of Sec. 503 of
Rosemead Building Code.
-The area and use of the current live poultry processing and retail sales areas no longer
• complies with approved plan dated 9/11/90
So there was actually without telling anyone from the city, they cut a hole from the one
section where they slaughter the chickens, to another section. Now, this is what's
disturbing about this: Knowing that you're in a city where you're legal non-conforming
and going ahead and doing something like that. Ais is why I'm disturbed about the
Avian Flu issue, because if they are going to violate something so obvious as cutting
holes through a building, and being warned about it, who is to say there's going to be
cleanliness used in the cleanup of all their operations. And I do not want dying from
Avian Flu. And, as a matter offact, our city borders South San Gabriel where they are
County and they are zoned Agricultural, A-1 and they are allowed to have chickens. So
this is an issue that affects people, all of us. South San Gabriel also, and they have a right
to talk about this.
11/9/06California Regional Water Ouality Control Board "Notice of Non
Compliance: Coverage under the NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System - did I say it right,- Brian,
Brian Lewin: Yes.
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with Industrial activity.
"since you have exposure of industrial activities, materials and equipment to storm
water, these activities ..are required to be covered-your facility must apply for a General
Permit.
12/1/06 email. "Regional Board (Regional Water Ouality Control Board) staff met
this afternoon with the opergjor/owner of the facility. They explained to him that 1) he
• needed to enroll in a stormwater permit and prepare a pollution prevention plan; and 2)
/
• Clark reads list of violations ( Italics are her comments)
7/31/03 L.A. County Department of Public Works- Hazardous Materials System.
Operating Permit-Local Sewer-Status: Suspended.Results: soapy, whitish residue on the
parking lot- a few chicken feathers;ww on area catch Basin." Remarks: Notice of
Violation Issued.
9/19/03 L.A. County sheriff-License unit investigation report. "Result of invesigatin
indicates a basis for protest" Departmental Recommendation -Denial-Applicant failed to
supply information necessary to do background."
8/28/03 L.A. County sheriff "we are unable to process your license application due to
...Falure to contact Investigator T. McLaughlin or supply information required pursuant
to County Code Title V H, 7.06. 100
So even when they were asked to fill out an application for a permit, it wasn't
forthcoming.
4/26/06 City of Rosmead
OUTSIDE STORAGE
- Remove all outdoor storage of cages;forklift & truck; unpermitted fencing in front
yard.
OBTAIN BUSINESS LICENSE- if do not obtain by Thurs. 5/11/06 your business will be
• ordered closed.
DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE-water heater cover that has been installed with plywood
material at building front must be replaced with an approved material. And my question to
that was, was that afire hazard to have - I would assume that's why the city cited them-
to have plywood over a water heater.
WASHING CAGES- You must cease the practice of washing of cages, parking lot,
equipment or anything else that allows the water flow to drain outside of the building.
See 7131103 warning from LA County. Still hapaeninp!
DILAPIDATED SIGNAGE-you must submit plans.. repair or replacement of the
dilapidated California American Live Poultry sigh.
Dilapidated signage: You must submit plans for repair or replacement of dilapidated
Cal-Fresh, Cal-Poultry sign. You know what? You go down there today and that sign is
in horrible shape. There's paint chips on it. It's flaking off. I mean this is TWO years ago
that they were asked to change the sign. Wouldn't you think ifyou wanted the city to
grant you something that you'd at least fix the sign And you know it's right down the
street from the Garvey Center, our beautiful Garvey Community Center. We have a lot of
events that happen there. People come from other cities sometimes, SCAG or the
Conservancy; people come from other cities, and 1 am 'so embarrassed frankly to think
that those people might be going down Garvey and looking at just the sign, and they're i
thinking, I thought Rosemead was beautiful based on the Community Center and they
think Ugh, it's slummy, frankly and I'm very upset about that. A sign! How much money
would that cost?
•
/0
• he needed to have effective best management practices at the site and cease all illegal
discharges Now this is what's interesting: the city IS responsible. At the planning
commission, I listened to the tape and it seemed that Mr. Agaba was saying that we were
not, it wasn't our job- but this says "The City of Rosemead as a permittee under our
municipal permit is responsible to inspect this site, and to take enforcement actions
as necessary
8/22/08 Now this is just a couple of months ago.L A County Department of Health
Services Preventive Health Services "observed that th e facility is using their parking lot
for offloading and storing cages of live chicken prior to processing. The excessive odor
coming from the animal waste (droppings) broken eggs and dead chickens. ,
Owner/operator was advised to use another location in the facihty for handling
these birds:'
Wholesale food official inspection report- "Provide a food retail operating permit for.the
food facility...owner/operator is hereby advised to appear for office hearing by 11:00 on
8/26/08 at the department of food and milk..
So this is on-going. And it's mind-boggling. And Mr. Lewin, I don't want to embarrass
you, but I appreciated your boldness at the planning commission because you made the
comment that you weren't going to read the violations because they've already been
documented. Well, as a matter of fact, in the minutes of the planning commission they
were not, there's no mention of what you said, so I'm going to read it.
• "Even up to tonight they don't have a history on their own of taking action to alleviate.
issues saying we're going to do this. Putting up an illegal structure is not exactly a good
faith effort either.. If they had been shown to be working very hard to be compliant with
all these rules that they've been breaking and have repeatedly been cited for I'd be
inclined to be sympathetic. But right now we are rewarding bad behavior. We are saying
we are going to give you this despite the fact that you haven't given us anything."..Trust
is something that's earned. And they have not even remotely earned our trust at that site."
And that is so true. And I'm sorry, but this is a record that speaks for itself. And I'm very,
very, concerned about allowing this for 1 business that has not complied over the years
we're crumbling and allowing it in 3 different areas in the city. And I'd like to know from
staff, who was notified that this was happening, and how were they notified.
Bermijo: Tonights meeting was noticed in the regular council meeting and was posted in
the newspaper 10 days before the meeting.
Clark: OK so it's what was in our packet. And no' offense but that's what I was afraid of,
it's one of those hearing notices that's very small and it's what you have to do as a city.
But it's in the newpaper in the back. Nobody reads that. And nobody's going to know
that it affects them. Were the people up there near the Mission Inn notified that.
Dolores Weidemann; I live up there
Clark: That's right you are up there.
They have no idea what's going on. That they could have a slaughterhouse permanently
there. They're in more danger really than the people on Garvey, because, like I said, the
• land use designation for the General Plan has already been changed to mixed use there.
So there's just this small window of opportunity down there. But up there and over there
by Temple City, they have NO idea what is happening. And I just think it needs to be re-
thought and worked out. I noticed that in our packed there was a list of other cities. I
noticed El Monte allows it and I don't know if they have any but it wouldn't be very
hard for them to move to El Monte. Perhaps their area is more insulated from residential.
it
be the city could help them with relocation Use some redevelopment money. i
• don't know. Solving a problem of 1 business that has not been compliant with changing a
whole use in a zone that has 3 different areas. So I'll make a motion that we deny this
resolution.
Tavlor: I'll second the motion
Audience: Applause
Nunez: I've been looking at the recommendations of the planning Commission and page
16 there is no safety problems. It's a process that what we're trying to do is make that
project work because that business has been there for such a long time. I think that the
violations on that property, they need, to correct them. We have a business that's been
there a long time and what they want to do. The word that's been used here is expansion.
And I said, what do you mean, expansion? Basically expansion means bringing down the
roof by 6 feet or something so they could put vents and things so they could clean up the
air. So it's not getting bigger, it's like putting an attic into the process is what they're
doing. You know the council, the uh planning commission has worked very hard on this
and I know there's a motion on the floor but I would agree to accept the
recommendations of the planning commission.
Audience: You're wrong.
Tran: so that's a substitute motion
Nunez: Yes that's a substitute motion.
Audience: you haven't listened to the residents.
Low: Mr. Mayor. So, I wanted to ask counsel about when the speaker came up and said
that I need to (recuse myself from voting) You know actually I don't even remember
where I received that contribution. So, is that a problem. Do I need to recuse myself.
• Bonifacio Garcia City Attorney: No, Ma'am
Clark: Well, she doesn't have to. Of course not.
Garcia: It's not a conflict of interest.
Clark: But she should.
Tr_; let me ask the attorney
Garcia: It's not a conflict of interest. And you are permitted to vote and you are not
required by law to recuse yourself.
Nunez: It's interesting that -by law she has to recuse herself?
Clark: No, I said she doesn't have to.
Nunez: Here's the thing. I remember during the Wal-Mart situation you know I didn't see
Mr. Ly going up to you and asking you to recuse yourself because you got money from
Wal-Mart.
Clark: I didn't take a penny from Wal-Mart.
Nunez: You got money from the developer.
Clark: I did not.
Nunez: You didn't get any money from Mr. Lewis or his organization
Clark: I got nothing from them.
Tran: We have a substitute motion Do we have a second on that?
Taylor: Do you have a motion and a second?
Clark: Who was the second on that?.
Low: I'll second that.
Tavlor: Mrs. Low, did you receive this packet last night? 222 pages. How many citations
• were issued to Cal-Poultry since 1991?
Low: I did not count them. It was 4 o'clock in the morning so L.
a lor. Whatever you say, I'll take it that you don't know what's in there then.
Low: That's not true Mr. Taylor.
/Z
• Taylor: OK how many citations then. Take a wild guess even.
Low: Mr. Taylor, I don't want to have to go through this game. I don't want to have to
answer your numbers, the number of citations.
Taylor: My point being is that she's claiming that since 1991 she wants to know why that
business was allowed to continue. All right, that s where we started at.
Low: Yeah
Taylor They came m and they had a business there and over the years the city has cited
them for violations. And what they do is, they come in, and they fix that violation, and
take it off the books. What they're doing now, what Mrs. Clark read, is total disregard for
everything. It wasn't like that when they first opened. They didn't have these violations.
They didn't have the building next door that they acquired and cut the hole in so they
could run their... in so they could use another building. So the fact that it was here in
1991, it's a question of they have blatantly now disregarded all the, a majority of all the
health code violations. And there's pictures in here of the different complaints that have
been made over the years that they have totally disregarded what they were supposed to
be doing. So when you say, why were they allowed to be in, we don't really any of us
like to go in and put somebody out of business.
Low: I agree with that.
Taylor: But when they disregard the regulations and the rules and the health and the
safety, pretty soon they're doing what they want and that's what they've turned into now.
Low: I agree with you that we don't want to put anybody out of business. This is a case
where the business is coming in and saying I'd like to remodel and make it better for the
• neighborhood. But what you're suggesting is turning down a business to do so. It's true, I
did review the citations and actually they have more citations in recent years. And 1
conclusion I came to was that the business is old. It's been 17 years. They need to fix it
up, they need to clean it up, and I think, even though I do support them in remodeling I'd
like to suggest staff to definitely work with them and monitor them and make sure they
are clean and make it reasonable for the residents in the neighborhood. So I think that
that's something that we need to do.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, You said earlier that you wouldn't support any more slaughterhouses.
And I don't understand why you're supporting Mr. Nunez' motion.
Low: You know, if this is 1991 and I'm on the council, and this came up I would not
have supported it.
Clark: I wasn't on the council then.
ow So I don't understand why the council supported it.
Clark: What does that have to do with what's before us today.
Low: But what I'm saying is I'd like staff to look into ...I understand your concern about
other areas
Clark: But you said it. What did you mean when you said you don't want them to come
into other areas?
Low: I would not want to have any other slaughterhouses in the city. i
Clark: But since you're approving tonight this ordinance it allows them..
Cow: Let me finish. OK? So what I'd like staff to look into, is what can we do? We
uaderstand this is a situation. We approved this once. The reason is, that I want this
• business to remodel and clean up. I don't believe in just putting them out of business. Can
staff help look into what are the options that basically makes it a lot harder for other
13
• slaughterhouses to come in. I think we can be creative and I think there's things that we
can do.
Clark: But the ordinance is already there. You're approving the ordinance tonight to
allow slaughterhouses in the M-1 zone. Period.
Tran: She's asking for..
Low: I'm asking for additional..
Clark: Well, then don't approve it tonight. Send it back and have staff work it over.
Low: I think that . You know what? You're so right about the health of the residents. I
want this thing done. I want this area cleaned up as soon as possible.
Audience: You don't know
Low: If I vote no on it you know what? This thing will drag on because I can so see a
as uit coming I can see the city will get a lawsuit and it will drag on a long time. The
residents will actually suffer by that place not being cleaned up. The goal is they will
need to clean it up as soon as possible.
Clark: Oh, come on.
Dolores Weidemann:..you weren't afraid to spend $75,000 to have the election. You
throw money around like it's. you need to do what WE want.
Tran: Lots of people voted on that proposition. I have a motion and a second.
ote: Yes: Tran, Nunez, Low. No: Clark Taylor)
Weidemann: (to Polly Low: )Oh, you're never going to go against them. You did that
once and you paid a consequence for it.
Land use attorney, Rachel Richman: Mr. Mayor if I could just interject. What you voted
• on is just the first reading: It will be coming back at the next meeting.
•
/Y