PC - Item 3A - Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 Amending Chapters 17.04 and 17.72 of Title 17 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code Relating to Regulations for Nonconforming Uses, Structures, Lots, and Parking Facilities ,
.
E M F
s
O 9 O
„,,,f ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
j CIVIC PRIDE
4> ?: :;.. ;. ` STAFF EPORT
ryCDRPORATED v9y9
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: MAY 18, 2015
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15-02
AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY
OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS
FOR NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS, AND PARKING
FACILITIES
Summary
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 consists of a City initiated amendment to revise Title
17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code to modify existing regulations for
nonconforming uses, structures, lots, and parking facilities. The code amendment
proposes to establish new development regulations for legal nonconforming uses that
were approved by a discretionary entitlement. The purpose of the amendment is to
encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent . to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced,
while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without, creating an ,
economic hardship for individual property owners or business owners. Lastly, Municipal
Code Amendment 15-02 proposes to eliminate the Zoning term and definition of
"bachelor apartment" from Chapter 17.04.050, as it is outdated and the definition is no
longer accepted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
On April 6, 2015, the Planning Commission continued this item to the May 18, 2015
Commission meeting and asked staff to bring back a resolution supporting the
amendment with the omission of proposed standards which would allow the addition of
conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming
residential structures. The revised MCA 15-02 has been included in this report as
Exhibit "A."
Environmental Determination
An Initial Study of Environmental Impacts was prepared recommending the adoption of
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration are , attached to this report as Exhibit B). The Initial Study is an
environmental analysis of the proposed Municipal Code Amendment to determine if the
•
I i
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18,2015
Page2of4
proposed revisions to the Zoning Code will have potentially significant effects on the
environment. This study found that there are no potentially significant environmental
impacts that could occur with the adoption of the proposed amendments.
A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was distributed for a 20-day public
review and comment period between March 16, 2015 and April 4, 2015. If the
Commission is inclined to recommend approval of this project, the Commission must
make findings of adequacy with the environmental assessment and recommend that the
City Council approve the Negative Declaration.
Staff Recommendation
Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the
Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 15-04 with findings (Exhibit "C"), a
resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Negative Declaration and
ADOPT Ordinance No. 935 (Exhibit "D"), amending Title 17 "Zoning" of the Rosemead
Municipal Code.
Background
The Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, adopted by City Council on October 22,
2013, included revised standards intended to be resident friendly and not detrimental
to the economic vitality of the community, while providing a process to eliminate
nonconformities, especially as they become detrimental to a neighborhood. The
current code includes provisions to allow beautifying improvements to legal
nonconforming structures, including interior alterations, repairs and maintenance, and
some enlargements subject to the Minor Exception application process. On April 6,
2015 a City-initiated municipal code amendment was proposed to allow exceptions to
the nonconforming standards for R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Light
Multiple Residential) properties. Specifically, the amendment proposed at the April 6,
2015 Planning Commission Meeting included text that would allow the addition of
conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming
residential structures through the City's existing Minor Exception process. During the
public hearing the Commission received public comment and discussed the purpose
and intent of the City's existing legal nonconforming ordinance. The Commission also
expressed their concern for ensuring that the community's adopted vision and goals
are fully accomplished. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue this
item and asked staff to eliminate proposed text that would allow the addition of
conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming
residential structures. The Planning Commission staff report, dated April 6, 2015 and
meeting minutes are attached as Exhibits "E", and "F", respectively.
Analysis
The revised text of Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 maintains the new rules for the
extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded,
or replaced, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all residents, and to continue
ongoing improvement of the City. Furthermore, in accordance with the Planning
Commission's direction the residential"exceptions that were in included in the April 6t
draft have been eliminated.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18,2015
Page 3 of 4
The following is an outline of the key elements of the proposed Ordinance. The
redline/strikeout version of proposed MCA 15-02 has been attached as Exhibit "A." A
final edited version is attached as Exhibit "G."
• Section 17.72.020 Establishment of Nonconforming Status is proposed to
reinforce the property owner's responsibility to provide evidence to the City to
justify the establishment of nonconforming rights. For example, this would include
completing a Los Angeles County building record search and submitting original
permit documents for structures that were built prior to the City's incorporation.
• Existing standards were regrouped into Section 17.72.030 Nonconforming uses,
Section 17.72.040 Nonconforming structures, Section 17.72.070 Residential
Exceptions to improve overall organization for ease of finding applicable code
regulations.
• Municipal Code Amendment adds text to clarify that any use that was authorized
by an approved discretionary permit but is not allowed by the current Zoning Code
is nonconforming and may only continue in. compliance with the original
discretionary permit conditions of approval. Section 17.72.040 Legal
Nonconforming Structures was expanded to allow any building that was approved
with a discretionary permit the possibility of expanding subject to the Minor
Exception application process.
• Lastly, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 also proposes to eliminate the term and
definition of "bachelor apartment" from Chapter 17.04, as it is outdated and the
definition is no longer accepted by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development.
Municipal Code Requirements
Article 6, Chapter 17.152 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the Planning
Commission to consider and recommend proposed Municipal Code Amendments to the
City Council. It also sets forth the procedures and requirements for Municipal Code
Amendments. Section 17.152.060.B sets forth the following findings that must be met:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan;
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan Land
Use Goals and Policies. It proposes to amend the Rosemead Municipal Code to delete
outdated terms, modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations applicable to
legal nonconforming uses and structures. The code amendment establishes limitations
on legal nonconforming uses and structures that were previously approved by a
discretionary entitlement. In conformance with Land Use Goal 1 (Maintain stable and
attractive single-family residential neighborhoods), proposals to add additional dwelling
units on residentially zoned lots will continue to be required to bring the existing
nonconformities into conformance with current Zoning Code standards.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18,2015
Page 4 of 4
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and
The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare will be served by the adoption
of the revised legal nonconforming regulations. The revised regulations will continue to
encourage the City's ongoing improvement by limiting the extent to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced,
while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents. Several standards are
proposed to ensure that the proposed amendment does not adversely impact the City
and its residents. Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 adds language to clarify that any
use that was approved by a discretionary permit and has become legal nonconforming
may only continue to exist within the terms and conditions of approval of the subject
permit. Furthermore, the amendment maintains existing standards that improve and
protect residential neighborhoods. Proposals to expand residential lots with additional
dwelling units will be required to eliminate and correct existing nonconformities before
additional residential units can be added to the property.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of
the Zoning Code.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes delete outdated terms, modify existing
regulations, and introduce regulations applicable to legal nonconforming uses and
structures for the purpose of improving clarity. The proposed municipal code
amendment ensures and maintains internal consistency with all other applicable
provisions of the Zoning Code.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091, this public hearing notice has
been published in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation within the local
agency, as the number of owners of real property within 300 feet of the project site is
greater 1,000. Lastly, this notice is also posted in five (5) public locations, specifying
the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing.
Prepared by: Submitted by:/8
■444g-": t661411-'0 (41w 1.
Sheri Bermejo Michelle Ramirez
City Planner Community Development Director
EXHIBITS:
A. Final Underline/Strikeout version of proposed MCA 15-02
B. Initial Study and Negative Declaration
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-04
D. Draft Ordinance 951
E. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 6, 2015
F. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated April 6, 2015
G. Final Edited version of proposed MCA 15-02
Chapter 17.72 NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS
AND PARKING FACILITIES
Sections:
17.72.010 Purpose.
17.72.020 Limitations on other uses and structures. Establishment of legal
nonconforming status.
17.72.030 Legal nonconforming uses.
17.72.040 Legal nonconforming structures.
..
17.72.050 Legal nonconforming lots. •
17.72.060 Reconstruction of damaged legal nonconforming buildings.
17.72.070 Residential exceptions.
17.72.080 Loss of legal nonconforming status.
17.72.090 Amortization.
17.72.010 Purpose. •A. -- - e . -• - — - - -- - -- - - - -- •-• - - ••••e -•e - -
or future amendments thereto.
limiting the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may continuc to be used,
This Chapter establishes regulations for legal nonconforming land uses, structures, and lots.
These are land uses, structures, and lots within the City that were lawfully established,
constructed, or subdivided before the adoption or amendment of this code, but which would be
prohibited, regulated, or restricted differently under the current terms of this code. This Chapter
is intended to encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, while
improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship
for individual property owners or business owners. Excepted from these regulations are
nonconforming signs, billboards and advertising devices, which are subject to the provisions of
Chapter 17.116:-969(Signs) of this Title.
.. - - -
',As upon any lot, no new usc, building, or structure may be established or constructed
thereon,
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4—SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 1
EXHIBIT A
17.72.020 Establishment of legal nonconforming status.
A. These provisions shall regulate the continuation, termination, and modification of land uses,
structures, and lots that were lawfully established, but which no longer conform to the
provisions of the Zoning Code due to a change in zoning boundaries, change in the
regulations for the zone in which it is located, or upon annexation. A change in ownership or
tenancy without any change in use, occupancy, or development shall not affect any of the
legal nonconforming rights, privileges, and responsibilities provided under this Chapter.
B. Land uses, structures, and lots not having previously acquired proper permits are illegal and
subject to immediate abatement. I
C. It shall be the property owner's responsibility to provide evidence or information to justify the
establishment of nonconforming rights subject to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
17.72.030 Legal nonconforming uses.
A. Except as hereinafter expressly provided, as long as a nonconforming use exists upon any
lot, no new use may be established or no new building may be constructed thereon.
B. Continuation of use.
Any nonconforming use may be maintained and continued provided that there is no increase
or enlargement of the area, space, or volume occupied by or devoted to the nonconforming
use. Alterations that do not increase or enlarge a nonconforming use or increase
environmental impacts (such as traffic, noise, drainage, light and glare, etc.) may be
approved.
C. Abandonment or discontinuance of use.
A nonconforming use which has been abandoned or has been discontinued for a period of
one (1) year shall not be reestablished and any subsequent reuse or any new use
established shall conform to the current provisions of this Title.
D. Change of use. -
A nonconforming use that is changed to, or replaced by a conforming use shall not be
reestablished.
E. Nonconforming due to parking. A use that is nonconforming due to the lack of compliance
with off-street parking standards may undergo changes in use subject to the provisions
listed below.
1. Land use changes in nonresidential zones.
a. Notwithstanding the provisions set forth in Section 17.72.030.E.1.b, the use of a
structure, which is only nonconforming due to lack of compliance with off-street
parking requirements required this Zoning Code, may be changed to another use as
long as the new use is permitted in the zoning district and does not require any more
parking than the current use within the structure, provided that any unsafe conditions
determined to exist by the Community Development Director, or Building and Safety
Official, or City Engineer shall be made to conform to current City standards.
b. The use of a nonresidential structure, which is nonconforming due to lack of
compliance with off-street parking requirements with respect to the number of stalls
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 12
EXHIBIT A
required by this Zoning Code, may be changed to another use which requires more
parking than the current use within the structure if the applicant can demonstrate that
••_ -e • _._• •- __. . • .•e compliance with alternative
parking provisions, as set forth in Chapter 17.112 (Off-Street Parking and Loading)
will meet the purposes of this code.
2. Land use changes in residential zones.
a. Residential garages. A residential garage that is nonconforming due to the lack of
compliance with off-street parking standards relating only to driveway width, turning
radius, minimum stall size, setback, or landscaping may be used to serve a new
residential use that does not require more parking than the original use, provided that
any unsafe conditions determined to exist by the Community Development Director,
or Building and Safety Official, or City Engineer shall be made to conform to current
City standards.
b. Residential single-family dwellings. An addition that does not exceed one hundred
twenty (120) square feet shall be permitted to any single-family detached dwelling
which is nonconforming due to parking, provided the following facts are found by the
Community Development Director:
1) The proposed addition does not exceed one hundred twenty (120) square feet
and no other building permits for additions have been issued for the subject
dwelling,
2) There has been no conversion of required automobile parking spaces to any
other use on the subject property, and
3) The proposed addition does not, by virtue of its placement on the subject
property, preclude future construction of an enclosed garage per the City's
Zoning Code.
F. Effect of discretionary permit requirements (such as Conditional Use Permit, Design Review
Approval, Zone Variance, Administrative Use Permit, or Minor Exception Permit, etc.).
1. Existing Variances, Conditional Use Permit:,discretionary permit approvals in effect.
No use, building, or structure shall be defined as nonconforming for the purpose hereof,
where it was previously authorized by a zone variance or conditional use permit, so long
or conditional use permit. A use that was authorized by an approved discretionary
permit but is not allowed by this Zoning Code may only continue inl compliance with the
original discretionary permit conditions of approval. The • _ '-- - - -• - -
Permit, discretionary permit must be validly issued and remain unrevoked and
unexpired.
2. Absence of a discretiona sermit a.'royal. A use lawfull existin. iwithout the a. royal
of a discretionary permit that would be required by this Zoning Code shall be deemed
conforming only to the extent of its previous lawful use (e.g. maint'aining the same site
area boundaries, hours of operation, etc.). Any change in use would require the
approval of the appropriate discretionary permit in accordance with ithe provisions of the
current Zoning Code.
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 13
EXHIBIT A
17.72.040 Legal nonconforming structures.
A. As long as a nonconforming building or structure exists upon any lot, no new building or
structure may be established or constructed thereon.
B. Alterations or additions.
The interior alteration and structure enlargement; or expansion, extension or reconstruction
of a nonconforming structure that is occupied by a conforming use shall be subject to the
following:
1. Applicability. This section shall apply to a structure that was established legally which
has become nonconforming due to setbacks, floor area, height, or other similar
development standards for structures.
1. Enlargement. A structure that is legal nonconforming due to setbacks, height, or other
similar development standard, but not including floor area, may be enlarged or extended
provided that the enlargement shall not increase the degree of nonconformity nor shall it
extend into any conforming setback area. Such enlargement shall be processed
pursuant to the standards set forth in Chapter 17.142 (Minor Exceptions). In the event
that the original building or structure was subject to a discretionary permit, the
appropriate approval authority in Section 17.120.100 (Changes to an approved project)
shall review the proposed enlargement subject to the standards set forth in Chapter
17.142.
2. Interior alterations. Changes to interior partitions or other non-structural improvements
may be made within structure that is legal nonconforming.
C. Repairs and maintenance.
Ordinary repairs and maintenance work may be made to legal nonconforming structures,
subject to the following provisions:
1. Ordinary repairs and the repair or replacement of nonbearing walls, fences, fixtures,
wiring, and plumbing may be made to an extent not exceeding the latest assessed
valuation of the structure.
2. Maintenance work shall not include structural alterations, except those required by the
Building Official or by any officer of the City charged with protecting the public safety, in
order to correct an unsafe condition.
. .! , _ _ • _ •• • e _ _ _ _ . _. (Moved to Section 17.72.030)
A. Land use changes in Nonresidential zones.
use within the structure.
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 4
EXHIBIT A
2. The use of a structure, which is nonconforming due to lack of compliance with off street
parking requirements, may be changed to another use which requires more parking than
- - - • . - - -- - - - , - _ - -- ' e• _ --
Parking-and-Leading),
B. Residential single family dwellings.
An addition that does not exceed one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be permitted to
facts are found by the Community Development Director:
on the subject property, and
3. •- - -_- - - -- -• -- - - - - ..... e• - e ee
preclude future construction of an enclosed garage per the City's Zoning Codc.
: e • . - - - _ . . _ . . e . (Moved to Section 17.72.030
Legal Nonconforming uses.)
A use that is nonconforming due to the lack of compliance with off street parking standards for a
etc.) may be used to serve a new use that does not require more parking than the original use,
provided that any unsafe conditions determined to exist by the Community Development
• _- - - - - -. - . a e - - - ' -- - - - . -•
City standards.
17.72.0750 Legal Nonconforming lots.
Nonconforming lots may be developed in conformance with the provisions outlined in Article 2,
Chapter 17.08, Section 17.08.050.
17.72.0860 Reconstruction of damaged nonconforming buildings.
Nonconforming structures damaged or destroyed due to an involuntary catastrophic event (e.g.
fire, earthquake, or other calamity) may be reconstructed or replaced provided:
A. The new structure shall comply with the development standards (such as setbacks and
height standards) in effect when the damaged or destroyed structure was originally
constructed; provided however, the new structure shall contain no more dwelling units
and/or floor area than the damaged structure.
B. All new construction shall comply with the current Building and Fire Code requirements.
However, the Building Official may require compliance for areas other than the new
construction when deemed necessary.
C. A building permit for reconstruction must be obtained no later than one (1) year after the
date of destruction, and construction must be pursued diligently to completion.
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4—SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 5
EXHIBIT A
D. If the preceding requirements are not met, the replacement structure shall comply with all
current requirements of this Title in effect on the date of application for the required building
permit.
17.72.070 Residential exceptions.
The purpose of this Section is to preserve residential development rights for properties that
were legally developed with residential dwellings and accessory structures, but through the
course of zoning code amendments and zone changes have been made legal nonconforming.
A. Existing single-family or duplex dwellings with nonconforming side yards solely due to the
application of Ordinance No. 851. An existing single-family dwelling unit or duplex in the R-
1 or R-2 zone that became legal nonconforming solely due to the application of Ordinance
No. 851 to the unit or duplex's side yard setback requirements as set forth in Article 2, Table
17.12.030.1 (Residential District Development Standards) and which, absent the changes
made by Ordinance No. 851, would conform to this Code may be enlarged or extended
provided that:
1. The enlargement or addition conforms to all other requirements and standards of the
current Zoning Code;
2. The enlargement or addition shall not increase the degree of non-conformity, including
adding additional floor area in the portion of the unit or duplex located in the side yard
setback as modified by Ordinance No. 851, and
3. The enlargement shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the existing floor area of the
dwelling unit or duplex.
4. Any other request for an enlargement that does not comply with the standards set forth
in Section 17.72.040.A.3.a-c shall be permitted subject pursuant to the standards set
forth in Chapter 17.142 (Minor Exceptions).
B. Legal nonconforming chain-link fences in R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. All existing legal
nonconforming chain-link fences in the R-1, 13-2, and R-3 zones shall be permitted to
continue as such until removed, extended or altered beyond the exception provisions stated
below, at which time such fence shall be made to conform to the requirements of Chapter
17.68 (Fences, Walls, and Landscape Screening).
1. No impact on additions and remodels to single-family dwellings or duplexes. All existing
legal nonconforming chain-link fences in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones shall be permitted
to continue, provided that the existing chain-link fencing is not considered a public
nuisance as defined in Chapter 8.44 (Property Maintenance), at the time a residential
addition or remodel is proposed.
2. Repairs and maintenance. Routine maintenance, such as rust removal, or replacement
of less than fifty (50) percent of the length of the fence along any property line with in-
kind material shall be permitted. Replacement of fifty (50) percent or more of the length
of a fence along any property line shall constitute a new fence, and in such case all legal
nonconforming chain-link fencing shall then be removed from the subject property.
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 16
EXHIBIT A
3. Reconstruction of damaged nonconforming chain-link fences. Nonconforming chain-link
fencing damaged or destroyed due to an involuntary catastrophic event (e.g. fire,
earthquake, or other calamity) may be reconstructed or replaced provided:
a. A fence permit for reconstruction must be obtained no later than forty-five (45) days
after the date of destruction, and construction must be pursued diligently to
completion.
b. The new chain-link fence shall comply with all other development standards outlined
in Chapter 17.68 (Fences, Walls, and Landscape Screening).
c. If the preceding requirements are not met, the replacement fencing shall comply with
all current requirements of this Title in effect on the date of the application for the
• required fence permit.
C. Legal nonconforming residential structures in nonresidential zones: Properties previously
zoned residential with legally established residential uses that have been re-zoned non-
residential may continue to be used and developed in compliance with the R-1 development
standards including but not limited to, additions and expansions, but not including the
construction of additional units.
1. Vacant Properties. Vacant properties shall be developed in compliance with the non-
residential development standards.
2. Non-Residential Development. If the property is developed into a non-residential use in
conformance with the non-residential zone the property will lose its non-conforming
exception status and must from that point forward conform to the existing zone.
17.72.1-00080 Loss of legal nonconforming status.
A. The right to continue a nonconforming use shall terminate when it is determined to be a
public nuisance by order of the Hearing Officer pursuant to procedures provided in Chapter
8.44 of this code or the order of a court of competent jurisdiction and the nuisance is not
abated in the manner and within the time stated in the order of the Hearing Officer or the
order of the court. In addition to the specific grounds for finding a nuisance as set forth in
Chapter 8.44 of this code, a nonconforming use is a public nuisance if:
1. The use is, or likely to become, injurious or detrimental to health, safety or welfare, or an
obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment
of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary
manner, of any public park, square, street or highway; or
2. The use is a business establishment that permits persons to congregate . for
unreasonably long time periods in parking areas and/or pedestrian walkways resulting in
unreasonable noise levels in residential areas between the hours of nine p.m. to seven
a.m., or resulting in the persons obstructing or interfering with the free passageway in
the parking areas or on said pedestrian walkways, or which becomes a place where an
unreasonable number of violations of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare) of this
code (such as underage drinking or gambling); or
•
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 7
EXHIBIT A
B. The right to continue the use of a nonconforming structure shall terminate when the
structure and/or the parcel on which it is located is determined to be a public nuisance by
order of the Hearing Officer made pursuant to Chapter 8.44 of this code, or by judgment or
order of a court of competent jurisdiction and the nuisance is not abated in the manner and
within the time stated in the order of the Hearing Officer or order of the court. If the
abatement of the nuisance required demolition of the structure, the order, judgment or order
of the court shall find that there is no other way reasonably to correct the nuisances other
than by demolition of the structure.
C. Where it cannot be found that demolition of a structure is appropriate, the Hearing Officer
shall permit the structure to remain in existence, but may impose one or more conditions to
bring the structure into conformity with the requirements of this Title so far as is reasonable
in addition to any other conditions necessary to abate the public nuisance.
D. Notwithstanding the provisions set forth in Section 17.72.100.A—C, any legal nonconforming
use or structure that was approved with a discretionary permit that is in violation of any
condition of approval, law, statute, or City ordinance shall be modified or revoked in
accordance with the applicable revocation procedures set forth in the Rosemead Municipal
Code.
17.72.090 Amortization.
The Zoning Code gives the City Council the authority to establish Amortization Regulations for
nonconforming uses, structures, and buildings.
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 18
EXHIBIT A
E m e
O 1
� _wa , is
O
o: f ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CIVIC PRIDE
r10 1,f_ 1� CITY OF ROSEMEAD
PLANNING DIVISION
1NCORP°RnTE°A9yg 8838 E.VALLEY BLVD.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
1. Project title: Municipal Code Amendment 15-02
2. Lead agency name and address: City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
3. Contact person and phone number: Sheri Bermejo, City Planner
(626) 569-2144
4. Project location: City-Wide
City of Rosemead
County of Los Angeles
5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
6. General plan designation: Citywide
7. Zoning: Citywide
8. Description of project. (Describe the whole action involved, including but not
limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site
features necessary for its implementation: Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 consists of a City initiated amendment to revise Title
17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code to modify several regulations for
nonconforming uses, structures, lots, and parking facilities. The purpose of the
amendment is to encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to
which nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or
replaced, while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating
an economic hardship for individual property owners or business owners. Municipal
Code Amendment 15-02, if adopted, would allow the expansion of Single-Family
Residential (R-1) and Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zoned lots with new residential
structures where legal nonconforming residential structures exist. Such expansions
would be processed pursuant to the City's existing Minor Exception application process.
The code amendment also proposes new limitations on land uses that were approved by
a discretionary permit but have become nonconforming due to revisions of the Zoning
1 EXHIBIT B
Code or Map. Such uses would only be able to continue to exist in conformance with
the permit's conditions of approval.
Lastly, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 also proposes to eliminate the term and
definition of "bachelor apartment" from Chapter 17.04, as it is outdated and the definition
is no longer accepted by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting. (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
The City of Rosemead is an urban suburb located in the San Gabriel Valley located 10
miles east of the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the cities of Temple
City and San Gabriel, on the west by Monterey Park and the unincorporated Los
Angeles County community of South San Gabriel, on the south by Montebello, plus by El
Monte and South El Monte on the east. The City is 5.5 square miles or 2,344 acres in
size. Rosemead is home to a resident population of approximately 53,764 people.
10. Other Agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement).
Approval by other agencies is not required as part of this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Agriculture
El Aesthetics ❑ Resources El Quality
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous
❑ Emissions ❑ Materials Li Hydrology/Water Quality
❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise
❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation
Utilities/Services Mandatory Findings of
El Transportation/Traffic ❑ Systems ❑ Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Q 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
2 EXHIBIT B
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 measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL MPACT 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 onqhe 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
revision or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further
is required.
•
0264.A. gj 09 01 S
Signature Date
Sheri Bermejo, City Planner
Printed Name
•
•
•
3 EXHIBIT B
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses", may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are
discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used
or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
9. The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to
evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the
impact to less than significant.
4 EXHIBIT B
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than ,
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
1. Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI
vista? _ _ _
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑
outcroppings, and historic building within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ❑ El
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ❑ El
views in the area?
2.; Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead,
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997)prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture:and farmland.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ ❑ ❑ El
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ❑ ❑ ❑
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of,forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section ❑ ❑ ❑ El
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
5 EXHIBIT B
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
3. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria egtablished by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project'
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ y_ ❑ � _
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air ❑ ❑ ❑
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ ❑ ❑
standard (including releasing emissions,which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑
substantial number of people?
4. Biological Resources .
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, ❑ ❑ ❑
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, ❑ ❑ ❑
policies, and regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally �^
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through El ❑ El
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?
6 EXHIBIT B
4
-
Less Than
Potentially Significant. Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues Impact. Mitigation Impact Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑
preservation policy or ordinance?
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?
5. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ El
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource ❑ El El
pursuant to§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
6. Geology and Soils
Would the project: _ _
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or ❑ ❑ ❑
based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ El
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ El
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? 111 El
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ El El
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on- El ❑ ❑ El
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
7 EXHIBIT B
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ ❑ ❑
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑
disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant ❑ ❑ ❑
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing ❑ ❑ ❑
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, ❑ ❑ ❑
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ ❑ ❑
likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or ❑ ❑ ❑
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code 65962.5 and, as a result, ❑ ❑ ❑
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan, or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ❑ ❑ ❑
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety ❑ ❑ ❑
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
•
8 EXHIBIT B
Less Than '
Potentially Significant Less Than,
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues Impact. Mitigation Impact Impact,
•
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ El
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ El
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been
granted?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which ❑ ❑ ❑ El
would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on-or off-site? .
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
•
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ❑ ❑ ❑
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned ❑ ❑ ❑ El
stormwater drainage systems or provide .
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? El El El El
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ El
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ /1
flows?
9 EXHIBIT B
f
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
. Significant With Significant No .'.
Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact z lmpact°
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑ lZil
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or rmudflow? El ❑
10. Land Use and Planning .
Would the project
a) Physically divide an established community? El El El III
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency v�ith
jurisdiction over the project(including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local El ❑ El LSI
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat;conservation ❑ El El IZI
plan or natural communities conservation plan?
11. Mineral Resources
Would the.project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the El El ❑ IZI
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ El
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
12. Noise , - - ;
Would the project result in
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the ❑ ❑ ❑
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or ❑ El El
groundborne noise levels? •
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ El El
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ El IZI
levels existing without the project? G
i
10 EXHIBIT B
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or,where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ❑ ❑ El
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
13: Population and Housing
Would the project: -
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly(e.g., by proposing new homes ❑ ❑ ❑
and businesses) or indirectly(e.g., through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ El
housing elsewhere?
14. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ El
---b) Police Protection? ---_-._.__.____._._ �_ _ ❑ __—_. ❑ Li ._.._-_
c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ El
— - .
d) Parks? ❑ � —�__
❑ _ ❑ _�.._...®
e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
15. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ El
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated? __ _ _
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or —m
require the construction or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ Ell
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
11 EXHIBIT B
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant NO
Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
16..Transportation/Traffic
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial
in relation to the existing traffic loadl and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a ❑ ❑ ❑
substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity)ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the ❑ ❑ ❑
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a ❑ ❑ ❑
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ❑
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
•
17. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ❑
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,the construction ❑ ❑ ❑
of which could cause significant environmental
effects? •
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ ❑
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
12 EXHIBIT B
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues Impact` Mitigation Impact Impact
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider,which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑
serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid ❑ ❑ ❑ El
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑ El
and regulations related to solid waste?
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a ❑ ❑ ❑
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ ❑ ❑ El
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects,the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
13 EXHIBIT B
•
• EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. AESTHETICS
The City of Rosemead is located within a highly urbanized area of eastern Los Angeles
County and is situated between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the
Montebello Hills to the south. The surrounding hillsides and distant mountains, as well as
the Whittier Narrows Golf Course just outside the City's southeastern limit, are the
dominant features of the scenic vistas along the City's borders. No State or County
designated scenic highways or streets or segments thereof are located within the City's
boundaries.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is designed to encourage the City's continuing
improvement by limiting the ex>{ent to which nonconforming structures and uses may
continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, while improving the health, safety, and
welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship for individual property
owners or business owners. The code amendment establishes new limitations on legal
nonconforming uses that were lreviously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It
also requires a Minor Exception application process for the addition of conforming
structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming residential
structures.
•
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes to maintain the existing standards and
process in the Municipal Code. for the termination of legal nonconforming uses and
structures when they are determined to be a public nuisance. The amendment
proposes to restrict legal nonconforming uses that were authorized by an approved
discretionary permit to continuation only in compliance with the original discretionary
permit conditions of approval.
Although the amendment proposes to preserve residential development rights for
properties that were legally developed with residential dwellings and accessory
structures, and allow subject residential R-1 and R-2 lots to be expanded with new
conforming structures, several standards are included to prevent impacts to the public
and/or the environment. These residential expansions would need to include all
necessary work to eliminate any hazard or safety problem on an existing structure in
order to correct an unsafe condition. The proposal would also require any necessary
work to maintain or improve the aesthetic appearance or architectural viability of the
existing nonconforming structures onsite.
Implementation of the proposed:municipal code amendment would not create changes
impacting scenic vistas or resources or substantially degrade the visual character of the
City, as no grading or development is proposed. The proposed Zoning Code amendment
amends the Rosemead Municipal Code to delete outdated regulations, modify existing
regulations, and introduce regulations applicable to legal nonconforming uses and
structures. The code amendment does not propose a development project.
2. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The proposed project will not result in the conversion of existing agricultural land to
urban uses. The only agricultural uses in the City are landscape nurseries situated under
Southern California Edison transmission lines on property zoned 0-S (Open Space).
14 EXHIBIT B
The project area is located in an urban setting and does not contain any agricultural
resources as defined by the state farmland mapping and monitoring program. The city-
wide project site does not have a land use or implementing zoning designation for
agricultural use, and therefore would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use
or a Williamson Act contract.
The City is located in a highly urbanized area of Los Angeles County, and possesses no
timberland or other forestry resources, nor does it have any Zoning or General Plan
designations for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Furthermore, the
proposed project is not a development project or land use plan. The.proposed code
amendment amends the Rosemead Municipal Code to delete outdated regulations, •
modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations applicable to legal nonconforming
residential uses and structures.
The proposed project would not require any changes to the existing environment which
would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, no
impacts on existing agricultural resources would occur from implementation of Municipal
Code Amendment 15-02, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
3. AIR QUALITY
The City lies within the San Gabriel Valley portion of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin),
which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). As a result of'implementing comprehensive control strategies to reduce
pollution from mobile and stationary sources by the SCAQMD, the Basin's air quality has
improved significantly over the years. However, the Basin is still considered a non-
attainment area for ozone, suspended particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5).
To ensure continued progress toward clean air and comply with state and federal
requirements, the SCAQMD in conjunction with. the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) prepared the 2007 Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). The 2007 AQMP employs the most up-to-date science and
analytical tools and incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution
from all sources, including stationary sources, on-road and off-road mobile sources and
area sources.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is not a development project or land use plan, nor
does it propose any new grading, development entitlements, or land use changes.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is designed to encourage the City's continuing
improvement by limiting the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may
continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, while improving the health, safety, and
welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship for individual property
owners or business owners. The code amendment establishes new limitations on legal
nonconforming uses that were previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It
also requires a Minor Exception application process for the addition of conforming
structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming residential
structures.
15 EXHIBIT B
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes to maintain the existing standards and
process in the Municipal Code for the termination of legal nonconforming uses and
structures when they are determined to be a public nuisance. The amendment proposes
to restrict legal nonconforming uses that were authorized by an approved discretionary
permit to continuation only in compliance with the original discretionary permit conditions
of approval. The intent of this project is to amend the Rosemead Municipal Code to
delete outdated regulations, modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations
applicable to legal nonconforming residential uses and structures. Therefore, there will
be no impacts on air quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is not a development project or land use plan, nor
does it propose any new grading, development entitlements, or land use changes.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is designed to encourage the City's continuing
improvement by limiting the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may
continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, while improving the health, safety, and
welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship for individual property
owners or business owners. The code amendment establishes new limitations on legal
nonconforming uses that were previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It
also requires a Minor Exception application process for the addition of conforming
structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming residential
structures. The proposed Zoning Code amendment amends the Rosemead Municipal
Code to delete outdated regulations, modify existing regulations, and introduce
regulations applicable to legal nonconforming residential uses and structures. There is
no expectation that the code amendment will lead to impacts to biological resources.
The city-wide project site is located in an urban, developed area and does not contain
any significant biological resources. The project does not provide habitat for any
candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The approval of Municipal Code
Amendment 15-02 does not involve any construction or specific development project,
and therefore would not create any significant impacts to special status biological
resources and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Since this city-wide project site does not contain any significant habitat resources, and
there is no direct development associated with the approval of this project there will be
no significant impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified
in local, regional, or national plans, regulations or policies. Additionally, no riparian
habitat or sensitive natural communities are located within the City, therefore, no
significant impacts would result from project implementation and no mitigation measures
are necessary.
Municipal Code 15-02 relates to land located in urban areas that have already been
disturbed with development. No wetlands would be impacted by approval of the
proposed code amendment. The City of Rosemead is not considered migratory wildlife
corridors due to the existing surrounding urban development.
The proposed amendment is not a development project and does not involve any land
use changes that would affect the open space areas identified in the General Plan, nor
does it involve any changes to trees in the public right-of-way.
16 EXHIBIT B
Approval of the Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 does not involve development of a
particular site or changes to an established policy that would allow for the degradation of
any significant biological resource. No adopted habitat conservation plan, natural
community conservation plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan would be
affected by approval of this project, and therefore no mitigation measures would be
required.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The City is located in a highly urbanized area of Los Angeles County. All of the land in
the City has previously been disturbed or developed. In addition, there are no existing
structures that are considered as having significant historical value, nor is there any
evidence of known archaeological or paleontological resources in the City.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 involves regulatory changes to the City's Zoning
Ordinance regarding the legal nonconforming uses and structures. The code
amendment establishes new limitations on legal nonconforming uses that were
previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception
application process for the addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are
developed with legal nonconforming residential structures. The proposed Zoning Code
amendment amends the Rosemead Municipal Code to delete outdated regulations,
modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations applicable to legal nonconforming
residential uses and structures.
The proposed code amendment is not a development project or land use plan, and will
not involve any construction activities or grant any entitlements for development projects.
Therefore, it will not affect any potential undiscovered historical, archaeological or
paleontological resources or human remains, and no mitigation measures would be
required.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
According to the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone map of the El Monte
7.5-minute quadrangle, there is one active fault within the City: the Alhambra Wash fault,
running from just south of the intersection of San Gabriel Boulevard and Garvey Avenue
to the edge of the Whittier Narrows Dam Flood Control Basin. Additionally, the
Geologic, Seismic and Flooding Technical Background Information appendix to the
General Plan states that there are several other faults that do not meet Alquist-Priolo
criteria but nonetheless have the potential to cause surface ruptures within the City.
The proposed municipal code amendment, in and of itself, is not a development project
and does not propose any land use changes or alterations to the existing environment of
the City. It is a code amendment designed to facilitate the City's continuing
improvement by limiting the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may
continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, while improving the health, safety, and
welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship for individual property
owners or business owners. The code amendment establishes new limitations on legal
nonconforming uses that were previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It
also requires a Minor Exception application process for the addition of conforming
structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming residential
structures. The proposed Zoning Code amendment amends the Rosemead Municipal
17 EXHIBIT B
Code to delete outdated regulations, modify existing regulations, and introduce
regulations applicable to legal nonconforming residential uses and structures. •
Although the amendment proposes to preserve residential development rights for
properties that were legally developed with residential dwellings and accessory
structures, and allow subject residential R-1 and R-2 lots to be expanded with new
conforming structures, several standards are included to prevent impacts to the public
and/or the environment. These residential expansions would need to include all
necessary work to eliminate any hazard or safety problem on an existing structure in
order to correct an unsafe condition. The proposal would also require any necessary
work to maintain or improve the aesthetic appearance or architectural viability of the
existing nonconforming structures onsite.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 will not introduce any new buildings or people into
areas known to be prone to seismic-related hazards. Therefore, the project will have no
impact with respect to exposing people or structures to potential adverse effects from
earthquake fault ruptures.
The proposed project does not involve any construction activity or additional occupancy
that could be impacted. Therefore, implementation of the proposed changes would not
have an impact regarding a geologic unit or soils, and no mitigation measures would be
required.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 does not propose any physical development and
therefore, will not generate greenhouse gas emissions. It is a code amendment
designed to facilitate the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced,
while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an
economic hardship for individual property owners. The code amendment establishes
new limitations on legal nonconforming uses that were previously approved by a
discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception application process for the
addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal
nonconforming residential structures.
Although the amendment proposes to preserve residential development rights for
properties that were legally developed with residential dwellings and accessory
structures, and allow subject residential R-1 and R-2 lots to be expanded with new
conforming structures, several standards are included to prevent impacts to the public
and/or the environment. These residential expansions would need to include all
necessary work to eliminate any hazard or safety problem on an existing structure in
order to correct an unsafe condition. The proposal would also require any necessary
work to maintain or improve the aesthetic appearance or architectural viability of the
existing nonconforming structures onsite.
18 EXHIBIT B
The proposed Zoning Code amendment amends the Rosemead Municipal Code to
delete outdated regulations, modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations
applicable to legal nonconforming residential uses and structures. It does not propose
any physical development and therefore, will not generate greenhouse gas emissions.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Municipal Code Amendment proposes to amend the. Rosemead Municipal Code to
delete outdated regulations, modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations
applicable to legal nonconforming uses and structures. The code amendment
establishes new limitations on legal nonconforming uses that were previously approved
by a discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception application process for
the addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal
nonconforming residential structures.
Since Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 does not propose a development project, it
would not involve the routine transport, use or disposal of any significant quantities of
hazardous materials. No hazardous emissions will be associated with the proposed
project. The project proposal is not site specific, thereby not in violation with government
code section 65962.5. Therefore, project implementation would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment. The proposed project regulatory changes would
not result in any safety hazards to people residing or working in community. Therefore,
no impacts would result from the proposed project.
The proposed project would not involve any uses that would interfere with the City's
emergency operations plan or with any major emergency evacuation routes out of the
area. Approval of the proposed project would not 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.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes to maintain the existing standards and
process in the Municipal Code for the termination of legal nonconforming uses and
structures when they are determined to be a public nuisance. The amendment proposes
text to restrict the continuation of legal nonconforming uses that were authorized by an
approved discretionary permit existence only in compliance with the original
discretionary permit conditions of approval.
Although the amendment proposes to preserve residential development rights for
properties that were legally developed with residential dwellings and accessory
structures, and allow subject residential R-1 and R-2 lots to be expanded with new
conforming structures, several standards are included to prevent impacts to the public
and/or the environment. These residential expansions would need to include all
necessary work to eliminate any hazard or safety problem on an existing structure in
order to correct an unsafe condition. The proposal would also be required to include any
necessary work to maintain or improve the aesthetic appearance or architectural viability
of the existing nonconforming structures onsite.
The proposed Zoning Code amendment amends the Rosemead Municipal Code to
delete outdated regulations, modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations
applicable to legal nonconforming residential uses and structures. It does not propose
19 EXHIBIT B
any physical development and therefore, will not generate impacts related to hazards
and hazardous materials.
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
' k
In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also referred to as the Clean Water Act
[CWA]) was amended to provide that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United
States from any point source unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The 1987
amendments to the CWA added section 402(p), which establishes a framework for
regulating municipal and indust tial storm water discharges under the NPDES program.
On November 16, 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published
final regulations that establish storm water permit application requirements for specified
categories of industries. The regulations provide that discharges .of storm water to
waters of the United States from construction projects that encompass five or more
acres of soil disturbance are effectively prohibited unless the discharge is in compliance
with an NPDES permit.
The proposed project would not be subject to the NPDES program, because the project
does not involve any construction activity. Therefore, the proposed project would not
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Additionally, the proposed project will not contribute to withdrawals from an existing
ground water supply. Because there is no site specific development associated with this
project, no changes to any established drainage pattern would occur upon
implementation. Therefore, no impacts with regard to drainage would result from project
approval, and no mitigation measures would be required.
As indicated in the project description, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is designed to
encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced,
while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an
economic hardship for individual property owners. The code amendment establishes
new limitations on legal nonconforming uses that were previously approved by a
discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception application process for the
addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal
nonconforming residential structures.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes to maintain the existing standards and
process in the Municipal Code for the termination of legal nonconforming uses and
structures when they are determined to be a public nuisance. The amendment proposes
to restrict legal nonconforming uses that were authorized by an approved discretionary
permit to continuation only in compliance with the original discretionary permit conditions
of approval. The intent of this project is to amend the Rosemead Municipal Code to
delete outdated regulations, modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations
applicable to legal nonconforming residential uses and structures. Therefore, there will
be no impacts on hydrology and water quality.
20 EXHIBIT B
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed project does not involve changes that would physically. divide . the
established community or degrade the existing land use pattern. The proposed project
will not 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 or Zoning
Ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as it
provides several regulations to ensure that residential neighborhoods maintain stable
and attractive.
As indicated in the project description, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is designed to
encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded,.or replaced,
while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an
economic hardship for individual property owners. The code amendment establishes
new limitations on legal nonconforming uses that were previously approved by a
discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception application process for the
addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal
nonconforming residential structures.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes to maintain the existing standards and
process in the Municipal Code for the termination of legal nonconforming uses and
structures when they are determined to be a public nuisance. The amendment proposes
to restrict legal nonconforming uses that were authorized by an approved discretionary
permit to continuation only in compliance with the original discretionary permit conditions
of approval. The intent of this project is to amend the Rosemead Municipal Code to
delete outdated regulations, modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations
applicable to legal nonconforming residential uses and structures.
The proposed regulatory change is not site specific and would not conflict with any
applicable habitat conservation plan. or natural community conservation plan area.
Therefore, no impact would result from implementation of the project and no mitigation
measures would be required.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
According to the City of Rosemead Resource Management Element,, no mineral
deposits of statewide or regional importance exist within the City. Therefore, no
significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required
12. NOISE
The proposed regulatory change does not involve any construction activity or uses that
would impact the City's established Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for each
of its land use designations. The City's General Plan Public Safety Element indicates a
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for each land use area, of which the project
will not affect.
As previously stated in the project description, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is
designed to encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which
21 EXHIBIT B
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced,
while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an
economic hardship for individual property owners or business owners. The code
amendment establishes new imitations on legal nonconforming uses that were
previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It also, requires a Minor Exception
application process for the addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are
developed with legal nonconforming residential structures.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes to maintain the existing standards and
process in the Municipal Code for the termination of legal nonconforming uses and
structures when they are determined to be a public nuisance. The amendment proposes
to restrict legal nonconforming uses that were authorized by an approved discretionary
permit to continuation only in compliance with the original discretionary permit conditions
of approval. The intent of this project is to amend the Rosemead Municipal Code to
delete outdated regulations, modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations
applicable to legal nonconforming residential uses and structures.
The proposed project will not expose people working in the City to permanent high noise
levels. There is no development resulting from approval of this project.
The nearest aviation facility is the El Monte Airport, located approximately one mile to
the east of the City. The City does not fall within the airport's land use plan. There are no
private airstrips located within the City of Rosemead or within its immediate vicinity.
Therefore, no significant impacts would occur in the vicinity of a public airport or private
airstrip and no mitigation measures would be required.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Municipal Code Amendment 15402 is not anticipated to induce substantial population
growth. Furthermore, there is no specific development involved with this project that
would require the extension of infrastructure in an area not previously served. Therefore,
no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required.
As indicated in the project description, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is designed to
encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced,
while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an
economic hardship for individual property owners or business owners. The code
amendment establishes new limitations on legal nonconforming uses that were
previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception
application process for the addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are
developed with legal nonconforming residential structures. New dwelling units
proposed would have to comply with the density requirements of the Rosemead.General
Plan and Zoning Code.
Municipal Code Amendment 15402 does not propose any physical development, nor
does it involve demolition or dislocation of any structures. The proposed Zoning Code
amendment amends the Rosemead Municipal Code to delete outdated regulations,
modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations applicable to legal nonconforming
residential uses and structures. ,Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no
mitigation measures would be required.
22 EXHIBIT B
•
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
As indicated in the project description, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is designed to
encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced,
while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an
economic hardship for individual property owners or business owners. The code
amendment establishes new limitations on legal nonconforming uses that were
previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception
application process for the addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are
developed with legal nonconforming residential structures. New dwelling units
proposed would have to comply with the density requirements of the Rosemead General
Plan and Zoning Code.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 does not propose any physical development, nor
does it involve demolition or dislocation of any structures. The proposed Zoning Code
amendment amends the Rosemead Municipal Code to delete outdated regulations,
modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations applicable to legal nonconforming
residential uses and structures. Therefore, the approval of Municipal Code Amendment
15-02 would not increase the demands on existing public services and would not
adversely affect fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or other public facilities.
15. RECREATION
As indicated in the project description, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is designed to
encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced,
while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an
economic hardship for individual property owners or business owners. The code
amendment establishes new limitations on legal nonconforming uses that were
previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception
application process the addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are
developed with legal nonconforming residential structures. New dwelling units
proposed would have to comply with the density requirements of the Rosemead General
Plan and Zoning Code.
The proposed project will have no direct effect on existing recreational facilities because
no new development is associated with the approval of this project. The project will not
introduce new permanent populations that would substantially deteriorate parks and
recreational facilities through increased use. No increases in the demand for such
facilities will occur as a result of this project. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no
• mitigation measures would be required.
The proposed project does not include, nor require, the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities. Existing recreational opportunities will not be affected by
implementation of the project. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation
measures are required.
23 EXHIBIT B
•
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The proposed municipal code amendment, in and of itself, is not a development project
and does not propose any land use changes or alterations to the existing environment of
the City. As indicated in the project description, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is
designed to encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced,
while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an
economic hardship for individual property owners or business owners. The code
amendment establishes new limitations on legal nonconforming uses that were
previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception
application process for the addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are
developed with legal nonconforming residential structures. New dwelling units proposed
would have to comply with the density and floor area requirements of the Rosemead
General Plan and Zoning Code.
Therefore, the project does not propose any use that would cause any changes,
individually or cumulatively, to the level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. No significant
impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required.
The project does not propose any use which could cause any changes to air traffic
patterns or a change in location that would result in substantial safety risks. The project
does not involve any specific development or regulatory change that would create
hazards for a subsequent development proposal. Therefore, no significant impacts
would occur and no mitigation measures would be required.
The project does not involve any specific development or regulatory change and does
not grant any entitlements that would impact emergency access to a particular site. The
project does not involve any specific development or regulatory change that could place
additional demand on the City's existing vehicle parking supply, nor does it propose
alterations to the physical environment of the City that could reduce the amount of
available parking. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation
measures would be required.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The City of Rosemead contracts with the Los Angeles County Consolidated Sewer
Maintenance District for maintenance of local sewer lines that connect to trunk lines
owned and operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, District 15.
According to the General Plan EIR, the sewers in the southern portion of the City (south
of Interstate 10) are likely operating at or near capacity, while the sewer operation level
in the northern part of the City is unknown. However, since the proposed project does
not grant any development entitlements or make any alterations to the existing physical
environment of the City, it will not cause or contribute to increases in wastewater
generation. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures
would be required.
As previously stated in the project description, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is
designed to encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced,
24 EXHIBIT B
while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an
economic hardship for individual property owners or business owners. The code
amendment establishes new limitations on legal nonconforming uses that were
previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception
application process for the addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are
developed with legal nonconforming residential structures.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes to maintain the existing standards and
process in the Municipal Code for the termination of legal nonconforming uses and
structures when they are determined to be a public nuisance. The amendment proposes
to restrict legal nonconforming uses that were authorized by an approved discretionary
permit to continuation only in compliance with the original discretionary permit conditions
of approval. The intent of this project is to amend the Rosemead Municipal Code to
delete outdated regulations, modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations
applicable to legal nonconforming residential uses and structures. Therefore, the
approval of the proposed Municipal Code Amendment will not result in the need to
construct new storm drain facilities, create adverse groundwater impacts, or generate
- solid waste generation impacts.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is designed to encourage the City's continuing
improvement by limiting the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may
continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, while improving the health, safety, and
welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship for individual property
owners or business owners. The code amendment establishes new limitations on legal
nonconforming uses that were previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It
also requires a Minor Exception application process for the addition of conforming
structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming residential
structures.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes to maintain the existing standards and
process in the Municipal Code for the termination of legal nonconforming uses and
structures when they are determined to be a public nuisance. The amendment proposes
to restrict legal nonconforming uses that were authorized by an approved discretionary
permit to continuation only in compliance with the original discretionary permit conditions
of approval. The intent of this project is to amend the Rosemead Municipal Code to
delete outdated regulations, modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations
applicable to legal nonconforming residential uses and structures.
The proposed amendment does not propose any physical development or land use
change. Therefore, there is no potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
including biological and cultural resources, generate cumulative impacts, or cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
25 EXHIBIT B
References
1. City of Rosemead General Plan (adopted 2008; amended 2010)
2. City of Rosemead General Plan EIR I
3. City of Rosemead Municipal Code
4. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
5. South Coast Air Quality Management, District 2007 AQMP www.agmd.gov
6. South Coast Air Quality Management District 2008 Air Quality Data www.agmd.gov
7. California Integrated Waste Management Board www.ciwmb.ca.gov
8. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Studies
Zones (El Monte Quadrangle, 1999) www.conservation.ca.gov
9. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazard
Zones (El Monte Quadrangle, 1999) www.conservation.ca.gov
10. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, www.dpw.lacounty.gov_
11. State Water Resources Control Board, http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/map/
12. Federal Emergency Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map 00059C0036H
13. California Integrated Waste Management Board, www.ciwmb.ca.gov
14. California Department of Finance, www.dof.ca.gov
26 EXHIBIT B
PC RESOLUTION 15-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTERS
17.04 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR
NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS, AND PARKING
FACILITIES
WHEREAS, April 6, 2015 a City initiated municipal code amendment (Municipal
Code Amendment 15-02) was brought to the Planning Commission to revise Title 17
(Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code to modify existing regulations for
nonconforming uses, structures, lots, and parking facilities, and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposed several revisions for
the purpose of addressing constraints on current residential property owners that limit
the full use of their property. It also proposed new rules for the extent to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of all residents, and to continue ongoing
improvement of the City. Lastly, the amendment proposed to modify several regulations
for nonconforming uses, structures, lots, and parking facilities, and eliminate zoning
terms and definitions that are no longer in compliance with State law; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2015, 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, Zoning Code,
and Zoning Map, including specific standards to control development, and
WHEREAS, Section 17.152.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the
Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed Municipal Code
Amendments to the City Council, and
WHEREAS, a on March 16, 2015, a Public Hearing Notice, specifying the public
comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65091(a)(4) was published in the Rosemead Reader and
posted at the five (5) public locations in the City; and
EXHIBIT C 1
•
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing. to receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal
Code Amendment 15-02; and
•
WHEREAS, during the public hearing the Rosemead Planning Commission
expressed their desire to ensure that the community's adopted•vision and goals are fully
accomplished, and confirmed that regulatory provisions are put in place to deal with
nonconforming structures, uses, and lots and to require them to be replaced or made
conforming over time, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue the
public hearing for Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 to the May 18, 2015 meeting and
directed staff to modify the amendment to omit proposed standards that would allow the
addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal
nonconforming residential structures subject to the Minor Exception development
process, and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to the revised
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02; 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 15-02.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
that facts do exist to justify recommending approval of Municipal Code Amendment 15-
21 in accordance with Chapter 17.152, Section 17.152.040 of the Rosemead Municipal
Code as follows:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan;
FINDING: Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is consistent with the Rosemead
General Plan Land Use Goals and Policies. It proposes to amend the Rosemead
Municipal Code to delete outdated terms, modify existing regulations, and introduce
regulations applicable to legal nonconforming uses and structures. The code
amendment establishes limitations on legal nonconforming uses and structures that
were previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. In conformance with Land
Use Goal 1 (Maintain stable and attractive single-family residential neighborhoods),
EXHIBIT C 2
project proposals to add additional dwelling units on residentially zoned lots will
continue to be required to bring any existing nonconformities into conformance with
current Zoning Code standards.
B. The proposed amendment will pot be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and
FINDING: The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare will be served by the
adoption of the revised legal nonconforming regulations. The revised regulations will
continue to encourage the City's ongoing improvement by limiting the extent to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced,
while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents. Several standards are
proposed to ensure that the proposed amendment does not adversely impact the City
and its residents. Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 adds language to clarify that any
use that was approved by a discretionary permit and has become legal nonconforming
may only continue to exist within the terms and conditions of approval of the subject
permit. Furthermore, the amendment maintains existing standards that improve and
protect residential neighborhoods. Proposals to expand residential lots with additional
dwelling units will be required to eliminate and correct existing nonconformities before
additional residential units can be added to the property.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of
the Zoning Code.
FINDING: Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes delete outdated terms,
modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations applicable to legal nonconforming
uses and structures for the purpose of improving clarity. The proposed municipal code
amendment ensures and maintains, internal consistency with all other applicable
provisions of the Zoning Code.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead does HEREBY
RECOMMEND that the City Council adopt Ordinance 951 and the amendment to
Chapters 17.04 and 17.72 of Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code the attached
hereto as Exhibit "A."
SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on May 18, 2015 by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
EXHIBIT C 3
SECTION 5. 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 18th day of May, 2015.
Nancy Eng, Chairwoman
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on 18th day of May,
2015, by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Michelle G. Ramirez, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Gregory M. Murphy, Planning Commission Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
EXHIBIT C 4
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 951
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15-02, AMENDING
CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR
NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS, AND PARKING
FACILITIES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. The following findings are adopted in support of
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02.
A. The City of Rosemead Zoning Code contains regulations and standards for legal
nonconforming land uses and structures in Article 4, Chapter 17.72; and
B. These regulations and standards were last amended on October 22, 2013 by
Ordinance No. 931 as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update; and
C. The City Council wishes to continue to encourage the ongoing improvement of
the City by limiting the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may
continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, while improving the health, safety,
and welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship for individual
property owners, and
D. Revised legal nonconforming regulations and standards are proposed in
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 to establish limitations on legal
nonconforming uses that were previously approved by a discretionary
entitlement; and
E. Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 also proposes delete outdated terms, modify
existing regulations, and introduce regulations applicable to legal nonconforming
uses and structures for the purpose of improving clarity; and
F. The proposed municipal code amendment ensures and maintains internal
consistency with all of the objectives, policies, general land uses, programs, and
actions of all elements of the General Plan. The update does not conflict with
current General Plan policies, objectives or programs; and
G. The proposed Municipal Code Amendment would not be detrimental to the public
convenience, health, safety, or general welfare of the City; and
1 EXHIBIT D
H. The proposed municipal code amendment will not have significant adverse
effects on the environment.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes a finding of adequacy with the
Negative Declaration and. HEREBY ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, as the
environmental clearance for Municipal Code Amendment 15-02.
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.
SECTION 3. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is in the best interest of the public necessity and
general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed text
amendment, in that the amendment to the Rosemead Zoning Code will provide a
superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the City.
SECTION 4. The City Council FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as
follows:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan;
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan
Land Use Goals and Policies. It proposes to amend the Rosemead Municipal Code
to delete outdated terms, modify existing regulations, and introduce regulations
applicable to legal nonconforming uses and structures. The code amendment
establishes limitations on legal nonconforming uses and structures that were
previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. In conformance with Land Use
Goal 1 (Maintain stable and attractive single-family residential neighborhoods),
project proposals to add additional dwelling units on residentially zoned lots will
continue to be required to bring any existing nonconformities into conformance with
current Zoning Code standards.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and
The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare will be served by the
adoption of the revised legal nonconforming regulations. The revised regulations will
continue to encourage the City's ongoing improvement by limiting the extent to
which nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or
replaced, while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents. Several
standards are proposed to ensure that the proposed amendment does not adversely
impact the City and its residents. Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 adds language
2 EXHIBIT D
to clarify that any use that was approved by a discretionary permit and has become
legal nonconforming may only continue to exist within the terms and conditions of
approval of the subject permit. Furthermore, the amendment maintains existing
standards that improve and protect residential neighborhoods. Proposals to expand
residential lots with additional dwelling units will be required to eliminate and correct
existing nonconformities before additional residential units can be added to the
property.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions
of the Zoning Code.
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes delete outdated terms, modify existing
regulations, and introduce regulations applicable to legal nonconforming uses and
structures for the purpose of improving clarity. The proposed municipal code
amendment ensures and maintains internal consistency with all other applicable
provisions of the Zoning Code. f
SECTION 5. Code Amendment. The definition of "Bachelor Apartment" in Title
17, Article 1, Chapter 17.04, Section 17.04.050 (Definitions) of the Rosemead Municipal
Code is HEREBY REMOVED in its entirety.
1
3 EXHIBIT D
SECTION 6. Code Amendment. Title 17, Article 4, Chapter 17.72 is HEREBY
AMENDED to read as follows:
Chapter 17.72 NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS
AND PARKING FACILITIES
Sections:
17.72.010 Purpose.
17.72.020 Establishment of legal nonconforming status.
17.72.030 Legal nonconforming uses.
17.72.040 Legal nonconforming structures.
17.72.050 Legal nonconforming lots.
17.72.060 Reconstruction of damaged legal nonconforming buildings.
17.72.070 Residential exceptions.
17.72.080 Loss of legal nonconforming status.
17.72.090 Amortization.
17.72.010 Purpose.
This Chapter establishes regulations for legal nonconforming land uses, structures, and
lots. These are land uses, structures, and lots within the City that were lawfully
established, constructed, or subdivided before the adoption or amendment of this code,
but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted differently under the current
terms of this code. This Chapter is intended to encourage the City's continuing
improvement by limiting the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may
continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, while improving the health, safety, and
welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship for individual property
owners or business owners. Excepted from these regulations are nonconforming signs,
billboards and advertising devices, which are subject to the provisions of Chapter
17.116 (Signs) of this Title.
17.72.020 Establishment of legal nonconforming status.
A. These provisions shall regulate the continuation, termination, and modification of
land uses, structures, and lots that were lawfully established, but which no longer
conform to the provisions of the Zoning Code due to a change in zoning boundaries,
change in the regulations for the zone in which it is located, or upon annexation. A
change in ownership or tenancy without any change in use, occupancy, or
development shall not affect any of the legal nonconforming rights, privileges, and
responsibilities provided under this Chapter.
B. Land uses, structures, and lots not having previously acquired proper permits are
illegal and subject to immediate abatement.
4 EXHIBIT D
C. It shall be the property owner's responsibility to provide evidence or information to
justify the establishment of nonconforming rights subject to the satisfaction of the
Building Official.
17.72.030 Legal nonconforming Uses.
A. Except as hereinafter expressly provided, as long as a nonconforming use exists
upon any lot, no new use may be established or no new building may be constructed
thereon.
B. Continuation of use.
Any nonconforming use may be maintained and continued provided that there is no
increase or enlargement of the area, space, or volume occupied by or devoted to the
nonconforming use. Alterations that do not increase or enlarge a nonconforming
use or increase environmental impacts (such as traffic, noise, drainage, light and
glare, etc.) may be approved.
C. Abandonment or discontinuance of use.
A nonconforming use which has been abandoned or has been discontinued for a
period of one (1) year shall not be reestablished and any subsequent reuse or any
new use established shall conform to the current provisions of this Title.
D. Change of use.
A nonconforming use that is changed to, or replaced by a conforming use shall not
be reestablished.
E. Nonconforming due to parking. A use that is nonconforming due to the lack of
compliance with off-street parking standards may undergo changes in use subject to
the provisions listed below.
1. Land use changes in nonresidential zones.
a. Notwithstanding the provisions set forth in Section 17.72.030.E.1.b, the use of
a structure, which is only nonconforming due to lack of compliance with off-
street parking requirements required this Zoning Code, may be changed to
another use as long as the new use is permitted in the zoning district and
does not require any more parking than the current use within the structure,
provided that any unsafe conditions determined to exist by the Community
Development Director, or Building and Safety Official, or City Engineer shall
be made to conform to current City standards.
b. The use of a nonresidential structure, which is nonconforming due to lack of
compliance with off-street parking requirements with respect to the number of
stalls required by this Zoning Code, may be changed to another use which
requires more parking than the current use within the structure if the applicant
can demonstrate that compliance with alternative parking provisions, as set
5 EXHIBIT D
forth in Chapter 17.112 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) will meet the
purposes of this code.
2. Land use changes in residential zones.
a. Residential garages. A residential garage that is nonconforming due to the
lack of compliance with off-street parking standards relating only to driveway
width, turning radius, minimum stall size, setback, or landscaping may be
used to serve a new residential use that does not require more parking than
the original use, provided that any unsafe conditions determined to exist by
the Community Development Director, or Building and Safety Official, or City
Engineer shall be made to conform to current City standards.
b. Residential single-family dwellings. An addition that does not exceed one
hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be permitted to any single-family
detached dwelling which is nonconforming due to parking, provided the
following facts are found by the Community Development Director:
1) The proposed addition does not exceed one hundred twenty (120) square
feet and no other building permits for additions have been issued for the
subject dwelling,
2) There has been no conversion of required automobile parking spaces to
any other use on the subject property, and
3) The proposed addition does not, by virtue of its placement on the subject
property, preclude future construction of.an enclosed garage per the City's
Zoning Code.
F. Effect of discretionary permit requirements (such as Conditional Use Permit, Design
Review Approval, Zone Variance, Administrative Use Permit, or Minor Exception
Permit, etc.).
1. Existing discretionary permit approvals in effect.
A use that was authorized by an approved discretionary permit but is not allowed
by this Zoning Code may only continue in compliance with the original
discretionary permit conditions of approval. The discretionary permit must be
validly issued and.remain unrevoked and unexpired.
2. Absence of a discretionary permit approval. A use lawfully existing without the
approval of a discretionary permit that would be required by this Zoning Code
shall be deemed conforming only to the extent of its previous lawful use (e.g.
maintaining the same site area boundaries, hours of operation, etc.). Any
change in use would require the approval of the appropriate discretionary permit
in accordance with the provisions of the current Zoning Code.
17.72.040 Legal nonconforming structures.
A. As long as a nonconforming building or structure exists upon any lot, no new
building or structure may be established or constructed thereon.
6 EXHIBIT D
•
B. Alterations or additions.
The interior alteration and structure enlargement or expansion of a nonconforming
structure that is occupied by a conforming use shall be subject to the following:
1. Enlargement. A structure that is legal nonconforming due to setbacks, height, or
other similar development standard, but not including floor area, may be enlarged
or extended provided that the enlargement shall not increase the degree of
nonconformity nor shall it extend into any conforming setback area. Such
enlargement shall be processed pursuant to the standards set forth in Chapter
17.142 (Minor Exceptions). lin the event that the original building or structure
was subject to a discretionary permit, the appropriate approval authority in
Section 17.120.100 (Changes to an approved project) shall review the proposed
enlargement subject to the standards set forth in Chapter 17.142.
2. Interior alterations. Changes to interior partitions or other non-structural
improvements may be made within structure that is legal nonconforming.
C. Repairs and maintenance.
Ordinary repairs and maintenance work may be made to legal nonconforming
structures, subject to the following provisions:
1. Ordinary repairs and the repair or replacement of nonbearing walls, fences,
fixtures, wiring, and plumbing may be made to an extent not exceeding the latest
assessed valuation of the structure.
2. Maintenance work shall not include structural alterations, except those required
by the Building Official or by any officer of the City charged with protecting the
public safety, in order to correct;an unsafe condition.
17.72.050 Legal Nonconforming lots.
Nonconforming lots may be developed in conformance with the provisions outlined in
Article 2, Chapter 17.08, Section 17.08.050.
17.72.060 Reconstruction of damaged nonconforming buildings.
Nonconforming structures damaged or destroyed due to an involuntary catastrophic
event (e.g. fire, earthquake, or other calamity) may be reconstructed or replaced
provided: •
A. The new structure shall comply with the development standards (such as
setbacks and height standards) in effect when the damaged or destroyed
structure was originally constructed; provided however, the new structure shall
contain no more dwelling units and/or floor area than the damaged structure.
7 EXHIBIT D
B. All new construction shall comply with the current Building and Fire Code
requirements. However, the Building Official may require compliance for areas
other than the new construction when deemed necessary.
C. A building permit for reconstruction must be obtained no later than one (1) year
after the date of destruction, and construction must be pursued diligently to
completion.
D. If the preceding requirements are not met, the replacement structure shall
comply with all current requirements of this Title in effect on the date of
application for the required building permit.
17.72.070 Residential exceptions.
The purpose of this Section is to preserve residential development rights for properties
that were legally developed with residential dwellings and accessory structures, but
through the course of zoning code amendments and zone changes have been made
legal nonconforming.
A. Existing single-family or duplex dwellings with nonconforming side yards solely due
to the application of Ordinance No. 851. An existing single-family dwelling unit or
duplex in the R-1 or R-2 zone that became legal nonconforming solely due to the
application of Ordinance No. 851 to the unit or duplex's side yard setback
requirements as set forth in Article 2, Table 17.12.030.1 (Residential District
Development Standards) and which, absent the changes made by Ordinance No.
851, would conform to this Code may be enlarged or extended provided that:
1. The enlargement or addition conforms to all other requirements and standards of
the current Zoning Code;
2. The enlargement or addition shall not increase the degree of non-conformity,
including adding additional floor area in the portion of the unit or duplex located in
the side yard setback as modified by Ordinance No. 851, and
3. The enlargement shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the existing floor area of
the dwelling unit or duplex.
4. Any other request for an enlargement that does not comply with the standards
•
set forth in Section 17.72.040.A.3.a-c shall be subject pursuant to the standards
set forth in Chapter 17.142 (Minor Exceptions).
•
B. Legal nonconforming chain-link fences in R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. All existing legal
nonconforming chain-link fences in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones shall be permitted to
continue as such until removed, extended or altered beyond the exception
provisions stated below, at which time such fence shall be made to conform to the
requirements of Chapter 17.68 (Fences, Walls, and Landscape Screening).
8 EXHIBIT D
1. No impact on additions and remodels to single-family dwellings or duplexes. All
existing legal nonconforming chain-link fences in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones
shall be permitted to continue,provided that the existing chain-link fencing is not
considered a public nuisance as defined in Chapter 8.44 (Property Maintenance),
at the time a residential addition or remodel is proposed.
2. Repairs and maintenance. Routine maintenance, such as rust removal, or
replacement of less than fifty 00) percent of the length of the fence along any
property line with in-kind material shall be permitted. Replacement of fifty (50)
percent or more of the length of a fence along any property line shall constitute a
new fence, and in such case aill legal nonconforming chain-link fencing shall then
be removed from the subject property.
3. Reconstruction of damaged nonconforming chain-link fences. Nonconforming
chain-link fencing damaged or destroyed due to an involuntary catastrophic event
(e.g. fire, earthquake, or other calamity) may be reconstructed or replaced
provided:
a. A fence permit for reconstruction must be obtained no later than forty-five (45)
days after the date of destruction, and construction must be pursued diligently
to completion.
b. The new chain-link fence shall comply with all other development standards
outlined in Chapter 17.68 (Fences, Walls, and Landscape Screening).
c. If the preceding requirements are not met, the replacement fencing shall
comply with all current requirements of this Title in effect on the date of the
application for the required fence permit.
C. Legal nonconforming residential structures in nonresidential zones: Properties
previously zoned residential with legally established residential uses that have been
re-zoned non-residential may continue to be used and developed in compliance with
the R-1 development standards including but not limited to, additions and
expansions, but not including the construction of additional units.
1. Vacant Properties. Vacant properties shall be developed in compliance with the
non-residential development standards.
2. Non-Residential Development. If the property is developed into a non-residential
use in conformance with the non-residential zone the property will lose its non-
conforming exception status and must from that point forward conform to the
existing zone.
17.72.080 Loss of legal nonconforming status.
A. The right to continue a nonconforming use shall terminate when it is determined to
be a public nuisance by order of the Hearing Officer pursuant to procedures
9 EXHIBIT D
provided in Chapter 8.44 of this code or the order of a court of competent jurisdiction
and the nuisance is not abated in the manner and within the time stated in the order
of the Hearing Officer or the order of the court. In addition to the specific grounds for
finding a nuisance as set forth in Chapter 8.44 of this code, a nonconforming use is
a public nuisance if:
1. The use is, or likely to become, injurious or detrimental to health, safety or
welfare, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the
comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free
passage or use, in the customary manner, of any public park, square, street or
highway; or
2. The use is a business establishment that permits persons to congregate for
unreasonably long time periods in parking areas and/or pedestrian walkways
resulting in unreasonable noise levels in residential areas between the hours of
nine p.m. to seven a.m., or resulting in the persons obstructing or interfering with
the free passageway in the parking areas or on said pedestrian walkways, or
which becomes a place where an unreasonable number of violations of Title 9
(Public Peace, Morals and Welfare) of this code (such as underage drinking or
gambling); or
B. The right to continue the use of a nonconforming structure shall terminate when the
structure and/or the parcel on which it is located is determined to be a public
nuisance by order of the Hearing Officer made pursuant to Chapter 8.44 of this
code, or by judgment,or order of a court of competent jurisdiction and the nuisance
is not abated in the manner and within the time stated in the order of the Hearing
Officer or order of the court. If the abatement of the nuisance required demolition of
the structure, the order, judgment or order of the court shall find that there is no
other way reasonably to correct the nuisances other than by demolition of the
. structure.
C. Where it cannot be found that demolition of a structure is appropriate, the Hearing
Officer shall permit the structure to remain in existence, but may impose one or more
conditions to bring the structure into conformity with the requirements of this Title so
far as is reasonable in addition to any other conditions necessary to abate the public
nuisance.
D. Notwithstanding the provisions set forth in Section 17.72.100.A—C, any legal
nonconforming use or structure that was approved with a discretionary permit that is
in violation of any condition of approval, law, statute, or City ordinance shall be
modified or revoked in accordance with the applicable revocation procedures set
forth in the Rosemead Municipal Code.
17.72.090 Amortization.
The Zoning .Code gives the City Council the authority to establish Amortization
Regulations for nonconforming uses, structures, and buildings.
10 EXHIBIT D
SECTION 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it
would have passed and adopted Ordinance No. 951 and each and every section,
subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without
regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid
or unconstitutional.
SECTION 8. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be
published in the manner required by law.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk attest to
the passage of this Ordinance. The;City Clerk shall cause the same to be published
once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This ordinance shall go
into effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its date of adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this th day of , 2015.
Margaret Clark, Mayor
City of Rosemead
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney
Burke Williams and Sorensen, LLP
11 EXHIBIT D
E M F
t 9 •
¢IA
as a
®0 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
I CIVIC PRIDE
(n _ ,0 ' STAFF REPORT
'NCOaPORATED''959
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION -
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: APRIL 6, 2015
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15-02
AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY
OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS
FOR NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS, AND PARKING
FACILITIES
Summary
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 consists of a City initiated amendment to revise Title
17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code to modify existing. regulations for
nonconforming uses, structures, lots, and parking facilities. The code amendment
proposes to establish new development regulations for legal nonconforming uses that
were approved by a discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception
application process for the addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that
are developed with legal nonconforming residential structures. The purpose of the
amendment is to encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to
which nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or
replaced, while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating
an economic hardship for individual property owners or business owners. Lastly,
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes to eliminate the Zoning term and definition
of "bachelor apartment" from Chapter 17.04.050, as it is outdated and the definition is
no longer accepted by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development.
Environmental Determination
An Initial Study of Environmental Impacts was prepared recommending the adoption of
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration are attached to this report as Exhibit A). The Initial Study is an
environmental analysis of the proposed Municipal,Code Amendment to determine if the
proposed revisions to the Zoning Code will have potentially significant effects on the
' environment. This study found that there are no potentially significant environmental
impacts that could occur with the adoption of the proposed amendments.
EXHIBIT E
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6,2015
Page 2 of 4
A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was distributed for a 20-day public
review and comment period between March 16, 2015 and April 4, 2015. If the
Commission is inclined to recommend approval of this project, the Commission must
make findings of adequacy with the environmental assessment and recommend that the
City Council approve the Negative Declaration.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
• Return to the Planning Commission at a date certain with a resolution
recommending the City Council approve these changes;
• Modify the proposed changes and return to the Planning Commission at a date
certain for further discussion and deliberation;
e Continue to work on the proposed changes and return to the Planning
Commission at a date uncertain; or
• Such other direction as the Commission finds appropriate.
Background
The legal basis for all land use regulation is the police power of the City to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. The Building Code, Zoning Code, and
Subdivision Ordinance are the primary regulatory tools used to accomplish these
goals. The City takes great care when preparing new ordinances to minimize the
creation of nonconformities if possible. However, as the community's vision for its built
environment evolves and changes, revision to the City's regulations (use requirements,
setbacks, height limitations, etc.) will inevitably result in the creation of nonconforming
uses, structures, and lots. To ensure that a community's adopted vision and goals are
fully accomplished, regulatory provisions are put in place to deal with nonconforming
structures, uses, and lots and to require them to be replaced or made conforming over
time.
A legal nonconforming structure, use, or lot is caused by a governmental action that
changes the Zoning Code, the Zoning Map, or the Subdivision Ordinance. All legal
nonconforming structures, uses, or lots were lawfully established under the codes at
the time, but due to the adoption of a new ordinance or map revision, the property no
longer conforms to the standards. As a general rule, nonconforming regulations
presume that a nonconformity is detrimental to the long-term public interest (health,
safety, morals, or welfare), and that the nonconformity needs to be brought into
conformance over time. The intent and practice of most legal nonconforming
ordinances is to allow nonconformities to continue until the end of their economic life
when they are voluntarily replaced with a conforming structure, use, or lot. In addition,
it is typical for nonconforming regulations to limit changes on premises which would
give permanency to or expand such nonconformities.
The .Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, adopted by City Council on October 22,
2013, included revised standards intended to be business friendly and not detrimental
to the economic vitality of the community, while providing a process to eliminate
nonconforming uses, especially as they become detrimental to a neighborhood. The
current code includes provisions to allow beautifying improvements to legal
EXHIBIT E
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6,2015
Page 3 of 4
nonconforming structures, including interior alterations, repairs and maintenance, and
some enlargements subject to the Minor Exception application process. However, the
current code also sets a limitation that as long as a nonconforming use, building, or
structure exists upon any lot, no new use, building, or structure may be established.
Although this limitation is standard in most cities' nonconforming use and structure
ordinances, it has led a number of Rosemead residents to inquire about requests for
Zone Variances to allow them to retain existing nonconformities and expand the
property with additional single-family residential units on parcels large enough for more
than one unit. These requests have not been submitted with completed applications
as it is nearly impossible to make the required findings since there are no special
circumstances to warrant such Zone Variance approval.
Analysis
Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes several revisions for the purpose of
addressing constraints on current residential property owners that limit the full use of
their property. It also sets new rules for the extent to which nonconforming structures
and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, to protect the health, safety,
and welfare of all residents, and to continue ongoing improvement of the City.
The following is an outline of the key elements of the proposed Ordinance. The
redline/strikeout version of proposed MCA 15-02 has been attached as Exhibit `B." A
final edited version is attached as Exhibit "C."
• Section 17.72.020 Establishment of Nonconforming Status is proposed to
reinforce the property owner's responsibility to provide evidence to the City to
justify the establishment of nonconforming rights. For example, this would
include completing a Los Angeles County building record search and submitting
original permit documents for structures that were built prior to the City's
incorporation.
• Existing standards were regrouped into Section 17.72.030 Nonconforming uses,
Section 17.72.040 Nonconforming structures,. Section 17.72.070 Residential
Exceptions to improve overall organization for ease of finding applicable code
regulations.
• Section 17.72.070 Residential Exceptions would allow residential R-1 (Single-
Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) lots to be expanded with
new conforming structures subject to the existing Minor Exception application
process. Necessary work to eliminate any hazard or safety problem on an
existing structure and/or improve the aesthetic appearance or architectural
viability of any existing nonconforming structures onsite would also be required
for project approval.
• Municipal Code Amendment adds text to clarify that any use that was authorized
by an approved discretionary permit but is not allowed by the current Zoning
Code is nonconforming and may only continue in compliance with the original
discretionary permit conditions of approval. Section 17.72.040 Legal
EXHIBIT E
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6,2015
Page 4 of 4
Nonconforming Structures was expanded to allow any building that was
approved with a discretionary; permit the possibility of expanding subject to the
Minor Exception application process.
• Lastly, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 also proposes to eliminate the term
and definition of "bachelor apartment" from Chapter 17.04, as it is outdated and
the definition is no longer accapted by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development.
Municipal Code Requirements
Article 6, Chapter 17.152 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the Planning
Commission to consider and recommend proposed Municipal Code Amendments to the
City Council. It also sets forth the procedures and requirements for Municipal Code -
Amendments. Section 17.152.060.B sets forth the following findings that must be met:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan;
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of
the Zoning Code.
The Planning Commission should discuss each of the findings and the reasons the
Commission feels they are or are not met. Staff will be available to assist as necessary
during the public hearing.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091, this public hearing notice has
been published in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation within the local
agency, as the number of owners of real property within 300 feet of the project site is •
greater 1,000. Lastly, this notice is also posted in five (5) public locations, specifying
the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing.
Prepared by: • Submitted by: •
:(8€
Sheri Bermejo Michelle-Ramirez
City Planner Community Development Director •
EXHIBITS: A. Initial Study and Negative Declaration
B. Underline/Strikeout version of proposed MCA 15-02
C. Final Edited version of proposed MCA 15-02
EXHIBIT E
Minutes of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 6,2015
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Eng at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 8838 E.Valley Boulevard.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Commissioner Tang
INVOCATION Chair Eng
ROLL CALL-Commissioners Herrera, Lopez,Tang, and Chair Eng
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT—City Attorney Murphy, Commurit Development Director Ramirez, City
Planner Bermejo,and Commission Secretary Lockwood.
1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL",RIGHTS
.4�
City Attorney Greg Murphy explained the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT'15-02 AMENDING_ CHAPTERS 17 04 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL;CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR NONCONFORMING USES,
STRUCTURES,LOTS,'AND PARKING'FACILITIES, Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 consists of a City
initiated amendment to revise Title:;17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code to modify existing
regulations for nonconforming uses, structures, lots, and parking facilities. The code amendment
proposes to;establish new development regulations for legal nonconforming uses that were approved
by a;_discretionary entitlement;,It also requires a Minor Exception application process for the addition
of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming residential
structures. The purpose,.of the amendment is to encourage the City's continuing improvement by
limiting the extent to which;nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used,expanded,or
replaced,while improving the health;safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an economic
hardship for individual property owners or business owners. Lastly,Municipal Code Amendment 15-02
proposes to'eliminate the.loning term and definition of "bachelor apartment" form Chapter 17.04.050,
as it is outdated_and the,`definition is no longer accepted by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take one of the
following actions:
• Return to the Planning Commission at a date certain with a resolution recommending the City
Council approve these changes;
• Modify the proposed changes and return to the Planning Commission at a date certain for
further discussion and deliberation;
• Continue to work on the proposed changes and return to the Planning Commission at a date
uncertain;or
• Such other direction as the Commission finds appropriate.
EXHIBIT F
City Planner Bermejo presented staff report and a power point presentation.
Community Development Director Ramirez explained that this request came about because staff has received a
number of requests from applicants,whereas, the size of their properties would allow two (2) units on the site, but
because they have one unit that is legal nonconforming, they cannot add the second unit. She added staff
did research with surrounding cities to find out what they are doing and unfortunately there is no norm on how any
City is handling this, so staff determined what would be best for our City. She explained that any addition would have
meet today's code.
Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff.
Commissioner Lopez asked if a home was built in 1951 and you moved.into;the City in 1976, where would those
records be found to make sure it was built to code.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied you would go to the Building Division to access those records.
Commissioner Lopez asked if the City would have records of homes built in 1951.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied if not, then:theyawould have to go to the County to obtain those
records.
Commissioner Lopez asked if the County does not have any records on the property,then what would happen in that
scenario.
Community Development Director Ramirez stated either the City or the County of Los Angeles should have some
type of records.
Commissioner Lopez asked if this will hamper residents that have older homes that have not been rebuilt in the last
twenty-five(25)years. s
Community Development Director Ramirez replied no,,typically they are able to find the records. She added they just
may not be able to find the records for all the additions because they may have not been done legally.
Commissioner Herrera asked if this will apply to the set-backs and everything else.
•
Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, it applies to the new home.
Commissioner Lopez asked if the second home will have a size limit.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied it is based on the FAR of the whole lot.
Commissioner Tang asked if the Zoning term of"bachelor apartment" is eliminated,will there be a replacement term
for it or has it been updated.
City Planner Bermejo replied no, and explained that the term is outdated and the term "studio" is used now, which
is what is used in the City's Zoning Code. She explained the reason they are eliminating it is because it talks about
the relationship of individuals to a unit.
Commissioner Herrera referred to a covenant in the title and that it be rented to a family member, and asked if it
would be considered a duplex at this time.
EXHIBIT F
City Planner Bermejo explained for example if you had a lot in the R-1 zone,the R-1 density is that you get a single-
family home for each 6,000 square feet of lot area. She stated there are some lot areas that are out there that have
12,000 square feet, so they could potentially come in and put in two (2) full fledge dwelling units and put two (2)
single-family homes on them.
Community Development Director Ramirez stated they can be rentals.
Commissioner Tang asked but they cannot be subdivided into a flag lot.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is correct.
Commissioner Tang asked regardless if it is a flag lot or not.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied a flag lot would notmeet the requirements.
Chair Eng stated Commissioner Tang's question was if the lot is large enough to be subdivided can they still do it
Community Development Director.Ramirez replied no, this is not a subdivision,this is two (2) units on one lot and it
would remain that way.
Chair Eng asked if the number of units permitted on a lot is based on zoning, so if it is an R-1, it is one unit with a
granny unit by statue.
City Planner Bermejo replied typically that is how most cities regulate zoning`R-1; but Rosemead allows more than
one(1)on an R-1 lot and will have to meet the lot area requirement.
Community Development Director Ramirez stated the granny unit that Chair Eng has referred to is the "second
dwelling unit"and that is different from what is being discussed this evening.
Chair Eng asked if a property owner would like to build an additional second dwelling on their property, it will not be
permitted because of the City's existing Zoning Code, due to the legal nonconforming situation of the lot.
City Planner Bermejo replied due to structures on their lot or use
Chair Eng
.'stated if the Amendment is approved and this moves forward, which will allow the addition for lots that are
large enough to accommodate the second unit, and the applicant will be able to go through a Minor Exception
process to apply'for that. She asked if that will change because under the General Plan there are a certain number
of units per acre.
City Planner Bermejo explained if there is a lot that is vacant today that is R-1 and has 12,000 square feet you can
put two (2) units on it. She added what is triggering the Code Amendment is that there is a provision in the Zoning
Code that states, as long as you have a legal nonconforming building, use, or structure on a lot, you can
essentially maintain it,you can go through a Minor Exception process to add to those legal nonconforming structures,
but you cannot put on a new structure even if it is conforming there is that provision that limits it.
Chair Eng stated so the City is trying to remove that obstacle.
City Planner Bermejo stated if the Planning Commission desires to remove that obstacle for property owners in the
R-1 and R-2 zones and it is only affecting those two (2)zones, planning staff has worked with the legal
nonconforming ordinance to adjust it to allow that process. She explained the way they did that is to create the Minor
EXHIBIT F
Exception application process and tied to that the property owner submits an application,they have to verify that they
have contacted their neighboring neighbors, and there is a list of code requirements to verify, add conditions
to improve the buildings on site so they are architecturally pleasing, and there are standards that are put there to
remove any type of hazards.
Chair Eng asked if the Minor Exception process is at staff level approval.
City Planner Bermejo replied that the application is noticed to the adjacent property owners and goes to the
Community Development Director, she has the ability to have it addressed at the Planning Commission level; if this
happens the Planning Commission may have approve it or have the City Council address it if necessary. She added
that is the process for all applications not just the Minor Exception applications.
Community Development Director Ramirez stated to answer Chair Eng's question it is approved by hear at a staff
level.
Commissioner Tang asked if the condition "to improve the existing structure architecturally pleasing" is a condition
that is required if you build the second unit or is that the discretion of the Community Development.Director.
City Planner Bermejo replied there are a lot of other Zoning Code standards in general in R-1 and when you add
structures then all the other buildings are addressed.
Community Development Director Ramirez explained that staff would not.make them bring it into conformity if that
is Commissioner Tang's question. It is still a legal nonconforming structure and it would stay that way.
Commissioner Tang asked if it is a 1950's home that is existing on the lot and they want to build a second unit that
will look brand new, but is not in harmony,would the City make them look similar.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied structurally they would not make them do anything, but they could
be required to paint and/or landscape if it needed.
City Attorney Murphy stated.when the Minor Exception process started it was initially because of side yard set-backs
and a few other- issues, but primarily set-backs. He stated the way the City Ordinance reads with legal
nonconforming structures you could not really upgrade or update a home, make it modern, add a family room, add a
second,story, if the house was,into the current set-back. He continued that some of the current set-backs for some
properties are pretty wide and there was also some buildings done under the County where they allowed houses to
be very- close to lot lines, so staff had been bringing a number of items to the Planning Commission for
Variances. He stated legal got to a point where they had to tell staff they could no longer support Variances because
one of the requirements for a Variance is that it is a unique circumstance. He stated they found so many
circumstances in so many residential properties that they said we can't go to the Planning Commission and say this
is unique; we have to find a different path. He stated staff created the Minor Exception process modeled on things
they were able to find in other cities and apply the Minor Exception process to certain building standards and property
development standards that the time the ordinance went into effect, were the ones that seemed to be more affected
by the update of the code. He stated side yard set-backs, single-story homes of unusual height, and set-backs in
the back yard where the garages are up.against property lines are the reasons and now we are seeing a different
type of issue. He stated the new issue is where the existing unit is out of conformity and staff has not taken a position
one way or another on this. He stated when staff brought the original ordinance to the Planning Commission they
brought this as a recommendation that this be adopted as part of the major Zoning Code overhaul, this is brought to
the Planning Commission as a policy decision. He explained as a Commission do they want to recommend to the
City Council that the Minor Exception process be expanded based on another kind of development constraint or do
they not want to make that recommendation. He added so do you want to say no you can't add a second unit
because it is the policy of the City that we need to start bringing everything into conformity or do you want to say this
EXHIBIT F
is something there should be an exception for because even though on a wide space basis we don't want to allow too
much overbuilding until you come into conformity, this is the type of situation you want to add to that overall
perception. He stated this is his advice and there is nothing legal to this item, it is simply a policy decision.
Chair Eng thanked City Attorney Murphy.
Commissioner Lopez asked if the City of Rosemead has a lot of properties that can do this.
City Planner Bermejo replied staff has not done that research.
Commissioner Lopez stated that he is concerned with the impacts of allowing properties being built on
properties,such as; overcrowding of people, too many cars per household, not enough parking,the streets being
crowded and how this will effect the City of Rosemead in fifteen (15) years from now. He referred to previous
discussions of mixed-use projects by the Planning Commission and how they will impact the City. He added the
Planning Commission needs to think about the community and how big,do they really want it to get.
Community Development Director Ramirez addressed the Planning Commission and stated that is why staff is not
taking a position on this issue. She explained that this is not good planning doing it this way. She asked if this was
resident friendly and stated yes.She stated the Planning Commission had brought up some good points and they are
points staff has discussed. She stated staff receives calls for this requests, how many are out there, staff does not
know.
City Attorney Murphy stated one of the other things that happens is that it might not always be an entirely new
second residence; it could be an accessory structure such as a pool house,or anything else that would be required
under the code to get permits as an accessory structure. He stated so under the code as strictly interpreted, no
other accessory structure can be added to the property;
Chair Eng stated she appreciates Commissioner Tang's and Commissioner Lopez's point of views and need to be
addressed. She asked:staff if the calls that they are receiving are for new homes or are they request for pool house,
laundry room, enclosed patios, or something.else.
City Planner Bermejo replied the majority of request is for new units because there is already a process in place to
add onto an existing structure.
Chair Eng stated what is needed is an inventory of how many legal nonconformity residential homes there are in
Rosemead:;.
Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff would have to survey every single residential home
in Rosemead. ;
Chair Eng stated if that'has,to be done, then that is what will have to be done, and it may take some time. She
recommended that this be thought out a little longer because more intense commercial developments are coming in
and that has to be taken into consideration. She stated we know there are issues with traffic, circulation, and the City
needs to plan, so it can grow smart in a way so the community can interact without stepping on each other. She
added we also do not want to deprive property owners of their right to use their properties, especially if the residents
contact the City to apply and do it in the proper way. She stated if the City has a process that is too frustrating, then
residents start doing things without coming to the City and that creates more problems. She added the City has a lot
of challenges on hand and the City of Rosemead is not a big city.
Commissioner Lopez commented that he moved to the City of Rosemead in 1976 and there were still horses on
properties. He stated this was a ranch style community and properties were averaging 5,000 square feet to 12,000
EXHIBIT F
square feet all over the city. He stated when mansions started to get built property owners started selling their
properties at high prices, so two or three properties could be built. He stated this is alright and is something
that needs to be done for the City but he is concerned it will be overdone. He added he has watched the City grow,
has seen a lot of these changes, approved a lot of these projects, and because the community is getting larger he
sees the obstacles.
Commissioner Tang stated he agrees with Commissioner Lopez in terms of too much development in a small
neighborhood but regardless if the house is already in conformance and if they have a lot that is at least
12,000 square feet he asked staff if they can build their second unit.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, and explained if you took the,nonconformity part out and the
unit was legal they would be able to do this. She added all that is being addressed this evening is if the unit is legal
nonconforming would the Planning Commission want to allow a residential second unit.
Chair Eng asked if the reason for nonconformity is usually because of setbacks and parking.
City Attorney Murphy replied yes.
Commissioner Tang stated since there is not an inventory, whether it be 10 homes or 100 homes,the City needs to
set the policy whether or not to allow those legal nonconforming lots to develop a second unit or do they want the
properties to be brought up to code. .
Chair Eng asked a question for a resident, "Will this amendment force property owners to tear down nonconforming
structures that have been grandfathered in as a result of zoning change,"and she said she thinks the answer is no.
City Planner Bermejo replied that is correct.
Chair Eng asked if an owner with a legal nonconforming property wanted to add a laundry room, will the property
owner be able to do this through the Minor Exception process.
City Planner Bermejo replied yes.
Chair Eng:asked if the approval will be at staff level unless the Community Development Director feels it needs to
be escalated.
City Planner Bermejo replied yes.
Chair Eng askedwhat the effect of 17.72.040"Exhibit B"is referring to legal nonconforming structures.
City Planner Bermejo replied that section still contains that first section for the Minor Exception to add on any
structure that is legal nonconforming due to setbacks, it goes through the repairs and maintenance provision, which
are existing, and types of'maintenance work that can be completed.
Chair Eng asked if the addition permitted under Section 17.72.070 is the Minor Exception.
City Planner Bermejo replied yes, those would be for the residential exceptions. She added "Section A"discusses
where an existing single family or duplex dwelling with nonconforming.
Chair Eng read Section"A3"and asked if that is the most current permitted improvement.
EXHIBIT F
City Planner Bermejo replied yes, and explained Ordinance 851 took place when the City did. the
Mansionization Ordinance and what it did was change the setback requirements. She explained "A" is saying if it is
solely nonconforming based on side-yard setback the property owner can do an addition without going through
a Minor Exception provided that the addition does not exceed fifty percent (50%). She added if the property owner
wants to do more than that,then they have to go through the Minor Exception process.
Chair Eng asked if Ordinance 851 is for Mansionization and when did it go into effect.
City Planner Bermejo replied yes and it took place in 2006/2007.
Chair Eng referred to "Exhibit B" 17.72.020 C. "subject to the satisfaction of the Building Official" and asked if the
Building Official has guidelines or criteria he needs to do this or is it arbitrary..
City Planner Bermejo replied the Building Official does this on a.;daily basis, and the City has a handout
called"Building Permit History". She stated it provides information.on where to go for your permits if your building
was built before 1933 through 1954 and it is the City's Building Official that can make the interpretation of those
permits.
Chair Eng referred to "Exhibit B"17.72.030 Legal nonconforming uses (E (1)`A=and B) and asked what impacts that
would have on R-1 and R-2 zones.
City Planner Bermejo replied E (1)A and B is;simply Nonresidential'Zones and E 2, Residential Garages,that would
take place where you have an existing garage today that doesn't. meet interior dimensions. She explained
that the City of Rosemead's Zoning Code requires:ihterior_dimensions of 20 x 20_and LA County standards were less
than that (18 x 18) but still it's a two-car garage. She added:they run;those building permits through the
Building Official and he says yes, that is correct according to current:'impasse codes and staff does not require
the property owner to increase the-size of their garage_if'they want to do an addition to their home. She stated they
consider that garage an existing garage that fulfills the requirement to do what they want to do, as soon as they
require more parking,then they have to comd,into compliance,
Chair Eng referred to F2 and asked what the intent is on that one.
City Planner Bermejo explained that it is just reiterating that when there is not a type of discretionary permit approval.
She read.-.F2.:and used a-church as an example to explain if it was approved prior to the City's incorporation,then the
City would allow that church to continue prior to its original standards, but it is not allowed to expand. If the church
is permitted in that zone and they wanted to expand, then they would come to the City to request a permit and that
permit would be a Conditional Use"Permit.
City Attorney Murphy. explained ,if a;restaurant was approved with a Conditional Use Permit for certain hours of
operation and has no_t'been going.to the limit of those hours, because they have that permit in place, they could
expand their use and'intensify it up to the limits previously granted. Where if it was a restaurant where it had been
allowed by right and now is;legal nonconforming, they are constrained by the extent of what they have been
doing. He added if they had been operating from 10:00 am to 11:00 pm, then they are stuck and they could not go
from 6:00 am to midnight. Whereas the restaurant with the Conditional Use Permit expressly authorized them to
operate from 6:00 am to midnight could make that change because they have a permit that allows them to. He stated
that is generally consistent with good legal requirements.
Chair Eng asked if 17.72.050 and 17.72.060 were just being renumbered and moved to the front.
City Planner Bermejo replied yes.
EXHIBIT F
Chair Eng referred to 17.72.090 Amortization and asked if there are criteria in place currently for the City to do this or
is it reviewed by case by case.
City Planner Bermejo replied the City does not have any current standards for Amortization Ordinance and explained
the standards were removed in the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update because they were unevenly treated and
the City could no longer enforce them.
Chair Eng stated so it gave the City Council a blanket authority to pursuit an Amortization policy and there are no
standards.
City Planner Bermejo replied yes.
Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments for staff.
None
Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and asked Brian Lewin to.the podium.
Resident Brian Lewin expressed that he is not sure making it easier for everybody to add more residences is
necessarily a good idea. He stated he understands for those'properties that have conforming structures and have a
parcel large enough they can legally do it by right and he does not have an issue with that. He recommended that
what needs to be considered is that you can to some extent control some:growth in the residential sector and the City
will be intensifying growth elsewhere. He stated,:hopefully the City can mitigate some of that within R-1 and R-2 to
the extent that it reasonably can He stated retaining the existing conditions for existing residential conditions would
be a good idea because it would force any new additions to bring the whole property into compliance and the City
would not be depriving them from their property rights.;He referred to the Negative Declaration and asked if there are
potentially having a considerably number2ot new residences added where_they could not currently be added, if that
would constitute a No-Impact Declaration. He suggested in terms in reigning in growth is to consider doing this just
for accessory structures:but not be able to add a new house and if they want to do that you would remove or omit
that from this proposed ordinance. He recommended allowing a new house that they would have to bring everything
into compliance. He stated if the ordinance.is going to be kept as it is, he referred to 17.72.030 E (1) A and (2) A,
Exhibit B and read a portion and recommended;adding "any unsafe conditions and/or other incidences of
noncompliance with Rosemead Municipal Code determined to exist by the Community Development Director." He
stated those two provisions will force the property owner to address any other issues that happen to exist within that
property:,He recommended this be added to address noncompliance and if they do not,then it will be addressed by
Code Enforcement. He referred to 17.72.030 E (2) B,the third line down, "any single-family detached dwelling which
is nonconforming due to,"and stated due to what, and requested a clarification. He suggested a provision number 4,
be added to that section stating, "The site is otherwise in full compliance with Rosemead Municipal Code." For the
same reason he suggested the previous modification above. He referred to 17.72.070, Residential Exceptions A (3)
and recommended adding a baseline or clarifying the baseline so they cannot exceed over the fifty (50) percent
continually. He referred to B (1) and recommended putting something in about eliminating noncompliance. He
stated that all of this is to make sure that if the City is going to give the property owners the ability to do this,then the
City should make sure before they get started that they have fixed everything else that may or not be a safety
hazard. He stated he would like the Planning Commission to consider omitting "Housing" from this as a way of
ensuring that the increase in density that we do have is in full conformance with the current Municipal Code.
Resident James Berry stated that some of these existing nonconforming structures or some that have been
remodeled may have safety concerns. He referred to parking regulations and asked if it is required to have a garage
and what are the required standards.
EXHIBIT F
Chair Eng replied yes, and explained there are garage standards and it is according to the number of
bedrooms. She added the standard is a two (2) car garage for up to four (4)bedrooms and anything above (4)
bedrooms will require a three(3)car garage.
Resident Berry stated he supports the change of the new regulations to change the structures.
Chair Eng asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak on this item.
None
Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing. She requested that the Planning Commission discuss the options that are
being presented and give staff guidance on what may be needed. She asked staff to explain the options that are
being presented.
City Planner Bermejo read the following options:
• Return to the Planning Commission at a,date,.certain with a resolution recommending the City
Council approve these changes;
• Modify the proposed changes and returns to the Planning,Commission at a date"certain for further
discussion and deliberation;
• Continue to work on the proposed changes and return to the Planning Commission at a date
uncertain;or
• Such other direction as the Commission finds appropriate.-
Chair Eng stated Resident Brian Lewin brought up a few good:points, but she does not agree with him on restricting
growth on residential properties. She added that will keep,property owners in R-1 and R-2 zones hostage because
the City will not let them improve their lots'because of these higher mixed-use buildings coming in and stated that it is
not fair. She added what she -does agree With Brian'LeWin on is that if someone wants to take the time and
investment to build onto,a.lot that is allowed they should bring it into conformance. She stated that is important and
is something she is willing to support.
Commissioner Lopez,stated staff is doing a great job and by bringing this item to the Planning Commission is trying
to do a better job.=He added that he supports this item, recommended that a few modifications/adjustments be made,
and brought back to the Planning Commission at a later date.
Community Development Director Ramirez explained that staff did not discuss making any changes and was not
given any guidance on what changes the"Planning Commission would like to see. She stated it was her
understanding.according to Chair Eng to leave the code as is and that there would not be any changes. She
addressed Commissioner Lopez end,stated it sounds like he is in favor of the code according to changes made, but
she is not clear on what changes and what direction of the Planning Commission would want.
Commissioner Lopez stated as long as staff can tell the Planning Commission that everything they look at and the
decisions they make is for the community to make sure it is right,then he will support it.
Community Development Director Ramirez stated once this code goes into place the City would follow this code and
we are not looking at the reasoning on why they are doing this and everyone will have to be treated the same,
thereby if the code says they can do it regardless if it is a rental or owner-occupied, they would be allowed to do
it. She stated it is just a matter if the Planning Commission wants to continue to have the matter of nonconformity to
exist and allow the second unit or accessory structure to be built.
Chair Eng asked for clarification of the current code and what the property owner is required to do.
EXHIBIT F
Community Development Director Ramirez explained the code that is in place currently states if the property owner
has a legal nonconforming unit or structure on site and they wanted to build a second unit, then they would have to
bring everything into conformity to today's standards. She stated the way the new code is written is allowing them
to keep that nonconformity and add the second structure or accessory unit.
Chair Eng stated if the City is going to give property owners the ability to make improvements to the lot, she
recommends that the property owner should bring everything into conformity to today's current standards. She
added that it will benefit the property owner, bring property value up, and it will be the property owner's decision or
consideration if the expense is worth it.
Community Development Director Ramirez stated that this new code, in no way, would make that site legal
conforming; it would still remain nonconforming because they have a nonconforming structure or use.
Chair Eng asked if the property owner wanted to expand or make the-additional unit,can the Planning Commission
request that staff go back to the Amendment to require that if they have the ability to build':a second structure they
would have to bring the other nonconformity structures to current standards.
Community Development Director Ramirez explained that is how the Code iswritten now and changes would not
have to be made. She stated the recommendation would be :"not to recommend approval of this ordinance". She
added if it is the will of the Planning Commission,then staff would bring back an ordinance to the next Planning
Commission meeting stating that the Planning:Commission is recommending denial of this ordinance to the City
Council and that is how it will be presented to the City Council.
Chair Eng asked if another Public Hearing process will be made when this is presented to the City Council to give the
public the opportunity to comment
Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes.
Commissioner Tang stated he agrees with Chair Eng and Resident Brian Lewin that if a property owner wants to add
a second unit they should be willing to bring the existing nonconforming home to the current code. He stated this will
create uniformity and value in the City. He commented that if this amendment is allowed to go through,then it would
take a while before that uniformity can be created.
City Attorney Murphy referred to accessoy structures and asked if the primary residence is in the setback area and
the owner wants to tear down and build a new-garage or some other type of accessory structure is that something
that the Planning Commission is in favor of allowing through the Minor Exception process. He explained the current
Minor Exception process allows an upgrade to residence itself as long as the new addition does not go into the -
setback. He asked if the Planning Commission would be willing to have other structures on the property be
upgraded, changed, or added as long as they were in conformity and is it the will of the Planning Commission that
the entire addition of the residences and other structures of the property not be allowed.
Community Development Director Ramirez added staff has not received any of those request. She stated that the
request has been for single-family homes.
Chair Eng asked if this is primarily for R-1 and R-2 zones.
Community Development Director Ramirez and City Planner Bermejo replied yes.
Chair Eng asked does the property owner, under the current code,who wants to build an accessory structure have to
build it to today's standards and codes.
EXHIBIT F
City Planner Bermejo replied the building code currently exempts any type of accessory structure below 120 square
feet, so as policy, Planning staff guides the property owner on placement, but they will get a 120 freebie, and go to
the Building&Safety Department for their permits.
Chair Eng asked if that is a patio.
City Planner Bermejo replied it is like storage shed.
Commissioner Tang recommended that if this is done it should be across the board, because if you allow it for
accessory structures it can open this to possible code violations and illegal conversions:'
Community Development Director Ramirez stated that Commissioner Tang has brought up a good point and that
would be the one question staff would be asked by the public on why the City allowssaccessory but not a single-
family unit.
Chair Eng asked so currently property owners of R-1 and R72 lots'who have a large enough lot to accommodate a
second unit cannot do anything unless they are willing to bring the lot to conformity and today's standards.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, to today's code,except for the Minor Exception where if they
wanted to add on,they would be allowed to do that.
Commissioner Tang asked if the Minor Exception would;still be allowed` ..'
Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes,that is already in the code and will remain.
Chair Eng asked if this Amendment is forcing property owners of illegal nonconforming structure to have to take it
down and demolish it.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied no this code will allow them to keep it
Chair Eng stated she would like for property owners to be able to utilize their property, get the most value for it, and
be able to.upgrade. She added at the same time, she thinks it's important for safety reasons because there are a lot
of permit issues on properties within the City and we need to find a way to fix them. She stated in the long term it's
for the good of the community as well as the property owner. She stated she does not want to deprive the property
owner to build or add if they have the ability and space, but at the same time the City needs some type of insurance
that will help,the Planning Commission upgrade the City. She stated the property owner currently has the ability to
build and add as long as they are willing to bring the site to the current code.
City Attorney Murphy stated the motion tonight would be to direct staff on what the Planning Commission would like
staff to come back with. He stated it would not be the first option which is a resolution recommending changes to
City Council. He stated it sounds like the Planning Commission would like a resolution recommending that these
changes not be made and that staff work with what has been said on the record tonight to make the proper findings
to support that.
Chair Eng stated she would like to ask staff if they can give the Planning Commission a little more time to work on it,
and to see if there is a way to help property owners, in terms of having the ability and for those that have the lot, to
improve on it in a fair and equitable way.
EXHIBIT F
Commissioner Tang asked if there could be an incentive offered to those homeowners if they want to build that
second home unit to update their nonconforming unit. He asked staff is there are any tools within the City that would
make that possible.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied typically you either allow it or you don't allow it, staff has taken
about five (5) months in researching other cities and in writing this ordinance and this is what staff has been able to
come up with. She explained something needs to be done that is considered fair across the board, where the City is
not giving one person an unfair advantage that someone else could not take advantage of. She added a lot of time
went into this, a lot of research, a lot of writing and rewriting, a lot of help from the City Attorney, and as a result of
everything,this is what staff thinks is the best that they can do.
Chair Eng referred to the staff report and that it states the neighboring cities.do not.have anything similar to this and
asked how the neighboring cities address something like this.
City Planner Bermejo stated staff has a survey and some cities arevery,restrictive and some are not and gave a brief
summary of survey results. She stated Rosemead is unique in allowing R-1 Zoning Districts'to build additional units
where other cities do not and is very resident friendly.
Community Development Director Ramirez reiterated that most of the surrounding cities do not allow two units in a R-
1 zoning district and Rosemead is very unique in this situation.
Chair Eng stated so currently R-1 zoning can build two units,they jut have to bring it up to today's standards.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes.`
Commissioner Lopez recommended it be left the same way and if a property owner would like to build an additional
unit,then the other unit should be brought up to today's standards. •
Chair Eng thanked staff for all their hard work.
City Attorney Murphy asked what date staff would like to set to bring this item back to the Planning Commission.
Community"Development Director Ramirez stated after-discussion it should be brought back to the Planning
Commission meeting to be held on Monday, May 18,2015.
City Attorney Murphy asked if it is the will of the Planning Commission'for changes not related to the R-1 and Minor
Exception- process, (changes in regards to parking, establishment of legal nonconforming status, the bachelor
apartment definition) to move forward but the other changes do move forward, or would you like to see the entire
ordinance not move.forward. He would like to make sure they get what they want as they move forward to the May
18,2015 meeting.
Chair Eng stated she would like to see that any of the changes that were made to clarify,to eliminate outdated
information, or to make the process easier,that those changes be kept. She added in terms of the second home she
would like to see that the second unit not be built unless the property owner is willing to bring the legal
nonconforming home up to today's standards and to leave it as it is.
City Attorney Murphy requested a motion and a second to bring forward a resolution based upon the Planning
Commission's discussion and direction to the May 18,2015 Planning Commission meeting.
EXHIBIT F
Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera to bring forward a resolution
based upon the Planning Commission's discussion and direction this evening to the May 18, 2015 Planning
Commission meeting.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Eng,Herrera,Lopez,and Tang
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Community Development Director Ramirez stated this item passes and explained ti at there is not an appeal process
because this item will be brought back to the Planning Commission and to.;the City Council.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of March 16,2015
Commissioner Lopez made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Tang,to.:approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
Vote resulted in: '
Yes: Eng,Lopez,and Tang;.; ,
No: None
Abstain: Herrera_.: -
Absent: None
5. MATTERS FROM STAFF
Community Development DirectorRamirez announced the date, time, and locations of the Young Americans and
Relay for Life.events... - -
Chair Eng encouraged 'everyone to attend they Young Americans production as it is very entertaining and
to also participate in the Relay for}Life,which is a great cause.
6. MATTERS;FROM THE CHAIR.&,COMMISSIONERS
Chair Eng thanked staff for having the graffiti on Walnut Grove removed so quickly. She thanked City Planner
Bermejo and staff for their hard work.
EXHIBIT F
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday,April 20,2015,at 7:00 p.m.
Nancy Eng
Chair
ATTEST:
Rachel Lockwood
Commission Secretary
EXHIBIT F
Chapter 17.72 NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS
AND PARKING FACILITIES
Sections:
17.72.010 Purpose.
17.72.020 Establishment of legal nonconforming status.
17.72.030 Legal nonconforming uses.
17.72.040 Legal nonconforming structures.
17.72.050 Legal nonconforming lots.
17.72.060 Reconstruction of damaged legal nonconforming buildings.
17.72.070 Residential exceptions.
17.72.080 Loss of legal nonconforming status.
17.72.090 Amortization.
17.72.010 Purpose.
This Chapter establishes regulations for legal nonconforming land uses, structures, and lots.
These are land uses, structures, and lots within the City that were lawfully established,
constructed, or subdivided before the adoption or amendment of this code, but which would be
prohibited, regulated, or restricted differently under the current terms of this code. This Chapter
is intended to encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which
nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, while
improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship
for individual property owners or business owners. Excepted from these regulations are
nonconforming signs, billboards and advertising devices, which are subject to the provisions of
Chapter 17.116 (Signs) of this Title.
17.72.020 Establishment of legal nonconforming status.
•
A. These provisions shall regulate the continuation, termination, and modification of land uses,
structures, and lots that were lawfully established, but which no longer conform to the
provisions of the Zoning Code due to a change in zoning boundaries, change in the
regulations for the zone in which it is located, or upon annexation. A change in ownership or
tenancy without any change in use, occupancy, or development shall not affect any of the
legal nonconforming rights, privileges, and responsibilities provided under this Chapter.
B. Land uses, structures, and lots not having previously acquired proper permits are illegal and
subject to immediate abatement.
C. It shall be the property owner's responsibility to provide evidence or information to justify the
establishment of nonconforming rights subject to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
17.72.030 Legal nonconforming uses.
A. Except as hereinafter expressly provided, as long as a nonconforming use exists upon any
lot, no new use may be established or no new building may be constructed thereon.
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 1
EXHIBIT G
B. Continuation of use.
Any nonconforming use may be maintained and continued provided that there is no increase
or enlargement of the area, space, or volume occupied by or devoted to the nonconforming
use. Alterations that do not increase or enlarge a nonconforming use or increase
environmental impacts (such as traffic, noise, drainage, light and glare, etc.) may be
approved.
C. Abandonment or discontinuance of use.
A nonconforming use which has been abandoned or has been discontinued for a period of
one (1) year shall not be reestablished and any subsequent reuse or any new use
established shall conform to the current provisions of this Title.
i
D. Change of use.
A nonconforming use that is changed to, or replaced by a conforming use shall not be
reestablished.
E. Nonconforming due to parking. A use that is nonconforming due to the lack of compliance
with off-street parking standards may undergo changes in use subject to the provisions
listed below.
1. Land use changes in nonresidential zones.
a. Notwithstanding the provisions set forth in Section 17.72.030.E.1.b, the use of a
structure, which is only nonconforming due to lack of compliance with off-street
parking requirements required this Zoning Code, may be changed to another use as
long as the new use is permitted in the zoning district and does not require any more
parking than the current use within the structure, provided that any unsafe conditions
determined to exist by the Community Development Director, or Building and Safety
Official, or City Engineer shall be made to conform to current City standards.
b. The use of a nonresidential structure, which is nonconforming due to lack of
compliance with off-street parking requirements with respect to the number of stalls
required by this Zoning Code, may be changed to another use which requires more
parking than the current use within the structure if the applicant can demonstrate that
compliance with alternative parking provisions, as set forth in Chapter 17.112 (Off-
Street Parking and Loading) will meet the purposes of this code.
2. Land use changes in residential zones.
a. Residential garages. A residential garage that is nonconforming due to the lack of
compliance with off-street parking standards relating only to driveway width, turning
radius, minimum stall size, setback, or landscaping may be used to serve a new
residential use that does not require more parking than the original use, provided that
any unsafe conditions determined to exist by the Community Development Director,
or Building and Safety Official, or City Engineer shall be made to conform to current
City standards.
b. Residential single-family dwellings. An addition that does not exceed one hundred
twenty (120) square feet shall be permitted to any single-family detached dwelling
which is nonconforming due to parking, provided the following facts are found by the
Community Development Director:
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 2
EXHIBIT G
1) The proposed addition does not exceed one hundred twenty (120) square feet
and no other building permits for additions have been issued for the subject
dwelling,
2) There has been no conversion of required. automobile parking spaces to any
other use on the subject property, and
3) The proposed addition does not, by virtue of its placement on the subject
property, preclude future construction of an enclosed garage per the City's
Zoning Code.
F. Effect of discretionary permit requirements (such as Conditional Use Permit, Design Review
Approval, Zone Variance, Administrative Use Permit, or Minor Exception Permit, etc.).
1. Existing discretionary permit approvals in effect.
A use that was authorized by an approved discretionary permit but is not allowed by this
Zoning Code may only continue in compliance with the original discretionary permit
conditions of approval. The discretionary permit must be validly issued and remain
unrevoked and unexpired.
2. Absence of a discretionary permit approval. A use lawfully existing without the approval
of a discretionary permit that would be required by this Zoning Code shall be deemed
conforming only to the extent of its previous lawful use (e.g. maintaining the same site
area boundaries, hours of operation, etc.). Any change in use would require the
approval of the appropriate discretionary permit in accordance with the provisions of the
current Zoning Code.
17.72.040 Legal nonconforming structures.
A. As long as a nonconforming building or structure exists upon any lot, no new building or
structure may be established or constructed thereon.
B. Alterations or additions.
The interior alteration and structure enlargement or expansion of a nonconforming structure
that is occupied by a conforming use shall be subject to the following:
1. Enlargement. A structure that is legal nonconforming due to setbacks, height, or other
similar development standard, but not including floor area, may be enlarged or extended
provided that the enlargement shall not increase the degree of nonconformity nor shall it
extend into any conforming setback area. Such enlargement shall be processed
pursuant to the standards set forth in Chapter 17.142 (Minor Exceptions). In the event
that the original building or structure was subject to a discretionary permit, the
appropriate approval authority in Section 17.120.100 (Changes to an approved project)
shall review the proposed enlargement subject to the standards set forth in Chapter
17.142.
2. Interior alterations. Changes to interior partitions or other non-structural improvements
may be made within structure that is legal nonconforming.
C. Repairs and maintenance.
Ordinary repairs and maintenance work may be made to legal nonconforming structures,
subject to the following provisions:
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS I 3
EXHIBIT G
1. Ordinary repairs and the repair or replacement of nonbearing walls, fences, fixtures,
wiring, and plumbing may be made to an extent not exceeding the latest assessed
valuation of the structure.
2. Maintenance work shall not include structural alterations, except those required by the
Building Official or by any officer of the City charged with protecting the public safety, in
order to correct an unsafe condition.
17.72.050 Legal Nonconforming lots.;
Nonconforming lots may be developed in conformance with the provisions outlined in Article 2,
Chapter 17.08, Section 17.08.050.
17.72.060 Reconstruction of damaged nonconforming buildings.
Nonconforming structures damaged or destroyed due to an involuntary catastrophic event (e.g.
fire, earthquake, or other calamity) may be reconstructed or replaced provided:
A. The new structure shall comply with the development standards (such as setbacks and
height standards) in effect when the damaged or destroyed structure was originally
constructed; provided however, the new structure shall contain no more dwelling units
and/or floor area than the damaged structure.
B. All new construction shall comply with the current Building and Fire Code requirements.
However, the Building Official may require compliance for areas other than the new
construction when deemed necessary.
C. A building permit for reconstruction must be obtained no later than one (1) year after the
date of destruction, and construction must be pursued diligently to completion.
D. If the preceding requirements are not met, the replacement structure shall comply with all
current requirements of this Title in effect on the date of application for the required building
permit.
17.72.070 Residential exceptions.
The purpose of this Section is to preserve residential development rights for properties that
were legally developed with residential dwellings and accessory structures, but through the
- course of zoning code amendments and zone changes have been made legal nonconforming.
A. Existing single-family or duplex dwellings with nonconforming side yards solely due to the
application of Ordinance No. 851. An existing single-family dwelling unit or duplex in the R-
1 or R-2 zone that became legal nonconforming solely due to the application of Ordinance
No. 851 to the unit or duplex's side yard setback requirements as set forth in Article 2, Table
17.12.030.1 (Residential District Development Standards) and which, absent the changes
made by Ordinance No. 851, would conform to this Code may be enlarged or extended
provided that:
1. The enlargement or addition conforms to all other requirements and standards of the
current Zoning Code;
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 4
EXHIBIT G
2. The enlargement or addition.shall not increase the degree of non-conformity, including
adding additional floor area in the portion of the unit or duplex located in the side yard
setback as modified by Ordinance No. 851, and
3. The enlargement shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the existing floor area of the
dwelling unit or duplex.
4. Any other request for an enlargement that does not comply with the standards set forth
in Section 17.72.040.A.3.a-c shall be subject pursuant to the standards set forth in
Chapter 17.142 (Minor Exceptions).
B. Legal 'nonconforming chain-link fences in R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. All existing legal
nonconforming chain-link fences in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones shall be permitted to
continue as such until removed, extended or altered beyond the exception provisions stated
below, at which time such fence shall be made to conform to the requirements of Chapter
17.68 (Fences, Walls, and Landscape Screening).
1. No impact on additions and remodels to single-family dwellings or duplexes. All existing
legal nonconforming chain-link fences in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones shall be permitted
to continue, provided that the existing chain-link fencing is not considered a public
nuisance as defined in Chapter 8.44 (Property Maintenance), at the time a residential
addition or remodel is proposed.
2. Repairs and maintenance. Routine maintenance, such as rust removal, or replacement
of less than fifty (50) percent of the length of the fence along any property line with in-
kind material shall be permitted. Replacement of fifty (50) percent or more of the length
of a fence along any property line shall constitute a new fence, and in such case all legal
nonconforming chain-link fencing shall then be removed from the subject property.
3. Reconstruction of damaged nonconforming chain-link fences. Nonconforming chain-link
fencing damaged or destroyed due to an involuntary catastrophic event (e.g. fire,
earthquake, or other calamity) may be reconstructed or replaced provided:
a. A fence permit for reconstruction must be obtained no later than forty-five (45) days
after the date of destruction, and construction must be pursued diligently to
completion.
b. The new chain-link fence shall comply with all other development standards outlined
in Chapter 17.68 (Fences, Walls, and Landscape Screening).
c. If the preceding requirements are not met, the replacement fencing shall comply with
all current requirements of this Title in effect on the date of the application for the
required fence permit.
C. Legal nonconforming residential' structures in nonresidential zones: Properties previously
zoned residential with legally established residential uses that have been re-zoned non-
residential may continue to be used and developed in compliance with the R-1 development
standards including but not limited to, additions and expansions, but not including the
construction of additional units.
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 15
EXHIBIT G
•
1. Vacant Properties. Vacant properties shall be developed in compliance with the non-
residential development standards.
2. Non-Residential Development. If the property is developed into a non-residential use in
conformance with the non-residential zone the property will lose its non-conforming
exception status and must from that point forward conform to the existing zone.
17.72.080 Loss of legal nonconforming status.
A. The right to continue a nonconforming use shall terminate when it is determined to be a
public nuisance by order of the Hearing Officer pursuant to procedures provided in Chapter
8.44 of this code or the order of a court of competent jurisdiction and the nuisance is not
abated in the manner and within the time stated in the order of the Hearing Officer or the
order of the court. In addition to the specific grounds for finding a nuisance as set forth in
Chapter 8.44 of this code, a nonconforming use is a public nuisance if:
1. The use is, or likely to become, injurious or detrimental to health, safety or welfare, or an
obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment
of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary
manner, of any public park, square, street or highway; or
2. The use is a business establishment that permits persons to congregate for
unreasonably long time periods in parking areas and/or pedestrian walkways resulting in
unreasonable noise levels in residential areas between the hours of nine p.m. to seven
a.m., or resulting in the persons obstructing or interfering with the free passageway in
the parking areas or on said pedestrian walkways, or which becomes a place where an
unreasonable number of violations of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare) of this
code (such as underage drinking or gambling); or
B. The right to continue the use of a nonconforming structure shall terminate when the
structure and/or the parcel on which it is located is determined to be a public nuisance by
order of the Hearing Officer made pursuant to Chapter 8.44 of this code, or by judgment or
order of a court of competent jurisdiction and the nuisance is not abated in the manner and
within the time stated in the order of the Hearing Officer or order of the court. If the
abatement of the nuisance required demolition of the structure, the order, judgment or order
of the court shall find that there is no other way reasonably to correct the nuisances other
than by demolition of the structure.
C. Where it cannot be found that demolition of a structure is appropriate, the Hearing Officer
shall permit the structure to remain in existence, but may impose one or more conditions to
bring the structure into conformity with the requirements of this Title so far as is reasonable
in addition to any other conditions necessary to abate the public nuisance.
D. Notwithstanding the provisions set forth in Section 17.72.100.A—C, any legal nonconforming
use or structure that was approved with a discretionary permit that is in violation of any
condition of approval, law, statute, or City ordinance shall be modified or revoked in
accordance with the applicable revocation procedures set forth in the Rosemead Municipal
Code.
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 6
EXHIBIT G
17.72.090 Amortization.
The Zoning Code gives the City Council the authority to establish Amortization Regulations for
nonconforming uses, structures, and buildings.
TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 17
EXHIBIT G
Y