The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 4A - Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 Amending Chapters 17.04 and 17.72 of Title of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code Relating to Regulations For Noncomforming Uses, Structures, Lots, and Parking Facilities 5 E /M R Q- O ksy 9 A O ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL CIVIC PRIDE STAFF REPORT 9940/NC...___ TED 1859 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER ," DATE: JUNE 23, 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 MCA 15-02 is 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. It was originally drafted and presented to the Planning Commission for the purpose of allowing the addition of new conforming residential structures on R-1 (Single-family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) lots that include existing legal nonconforming structures. However, after final discussion at the May 18, 2015 meeting, the Commission recommended that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance 951, approving MCA 15-02 without the proposed standards allowing the addition of new residential structures on properties with existing legal nonconforming structures. On June 9, 2015, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing for MCA 15-02. Upon hearing written and oral testimony, the City Council continued the public hearing to the June 23, 2015 meeting, and directed staff to bring back a revised ordinance to allow the addition of new conforming residential structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that include legal nonconforming structures subject to existing residential density limitations and the approval of a Minor Exception application by the Planning Commission. The Council also added a standard that would require notarized written consent from all property owners of the lots abutting the subject project site. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1) APPROVE the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts (Attachment "A") finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and ITEM NUMBER: 11/. City Council Report June 23,2015 Page 2 of 6 2) Introduce for First Reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 951 (Attachment "B") approving MCA 15-02 and 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. 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 included in this report as Attachment "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. 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 Council is inclined to approve this project, the Council must make findings of adequacy with the environmental assessment and approve the Negative Declaration. BACKGROUND 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 and buildings, 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. 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. In response to such residential project requests, staff prepared MCA 15-02, which was first presented to the Planning Commission on April 6, 2015. The amendment included revised language to improve the clarity of the existing nonconforming standards, and it also proposed to allow the expansion of R-1 and R-2 lots with new conforming structures subject to both the existing density limitations and the Minor Exception application process. During the April 6, 2015 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission received public comment and.discussed the purpose and intent of the City's existing legal nonconforming City Council Report June 23,2015 Page 3 of 6 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. At the May 18, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 15-04 recommending that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for the revised MCA 15-02. On June 9, 2015, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing for MCA 15-02. Upon hearing written and oral testimony, the City Council continued the public hearing to the June 23, 2015 meeting, and directed staff to bring back a revised ordinance to allow the addition of new conforming residential structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that include legal nonconforming structures. The Council also added new standards intended to mitigate impacts to the neighborhood and adjacent properties. The June 9, 2015 City Council report, which contains the Planning Commission reports from April 6, 2015 and May 18, 2015, have been included in this report as Attachment "C." ANALYSIS Ordinance 951 maintains the new rules for the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of all residents, as well as continuing ,the ongoing improvement of the City. Furthermore, in accordance with the City Council's direction on June 9, 2015, it includes standards to allow the addition of new conforming residential structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that include legal nonconforming structures. The following is an outline of the key elements of the proposed Ordinance 951. The underlined/strikeout version of proposed MCA 15-02 is included in Attachment "D" of this report. The final edited version is included in Attachment "B" (Ordinance 951). • 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), and 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 and R-2 lots to be expanded with new conforming structures, provided that density requirements of the zone are satisfied. Such expansion would be subject to the City's existing Minor Exception application process with the exception that such request would require notarized .written consent from all property owners of the lots abutting the subject City Council Report June 23,2015 Page 4 of 6 project site. Furthermore, the approval process would require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. 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. • MCA 15-02 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 provide any building that was approved with a discretionary permit the possibility of expanding subject to the Minor Exception application process. • Lastly, MCA 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 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; MCA 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 new limitations on legal nonconforming uses and structures that were previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception application process for the addition of new 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 significant impacts to the public and the environment. These standards require that an application.for development must be accompanied with a signed and notarized written consent from all property owners of parcels abutting the subject property, and may be granted only after a public hearing before the Planning Commission. In conformance with Land Use Goal 1 (Maintain stable and attractive single-family residential neighborhoods), all proposals would be required to include any necessary work to maintain or improve the aesthetic appearance or architectural viability of any existing nonconforming structures onsite. City Council Report June 23,2015 Page 5 of 6 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 without creating an economic hardship for individual property owners. Several standards are proposed to ensure that the proposed amendment does not adversely impact the City and its residents. MCA 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, any proposal for a residential expansion, involving existing legal nonconforming structures to be maintained on the property, 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. C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code.. MCA 15-02 proposes to 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. New residential development proposed on R-1 and R-2 lots that contain legal nonconforming structures must comply with current floor area ratio and density requirements indicated in both the Zoning Code and General Plan. 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. LEGAL REVIEW The attached Ordinance No. 951 has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. City Council Report June 23,2015 Page 6 of 6 Prepared by: Submitted by: 41/0M-LU 16AAM: Sheri Bermejo Michelle Ramirez City Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Initial Study and Negative Declaration Attachment B: Ordinance 951 Attachment C: City Council Staff Report, dated June 9, 2015 Attachment D: MCA 15-02 (Final Underlined/Strikethrough version) E M F 1 SVI y- _f ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 CIVIC 'PRIDE . *Q9O _ Iry CITY OF ROSEMEAD PLANNING DIVISION /NCORPORATED�,9g9 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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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. Aesthetics Agriculture 111 Aesthetics Resources 111 Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Li Hydrology/Water Quality Emissions Materials ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation Utilities/Services Mandatory Findings of ❑ 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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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. LI 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 onthe 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. Signature Date Sheri Bermejo, City Planner Printed Name • 3 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ATTACHMENT "A" ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 1. Aesthetics Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ El outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ❑ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ❑ views in the area? 2. Agriculture 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ATTACHMENT "A" Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With . Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ El pursuant to§15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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 ❑ —` ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- ❑ ❑ ❑ or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 7 ATTACHMENT "A" 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ p El ublic 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ h El azard for people residing or working in the project area? • 8 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,the production ❑ ❑ ❑ rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which ❑ ❑ ❑ would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ❑ ❑ ❑ s El ubstantially 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 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ flows? 9 ATTACHMENT "A" Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑ including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ EZI b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ ❑ coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural communities conservation plan? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ region and the residents of the state? b)/ Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ ❑ existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ ❑ levels existing without the project? 10 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people ❑ ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 require the construction or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 11 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the ❑ ❑ ❑ county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a ❑ ❑ ❑ change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ❑ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ ®' f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid ❑ ❑ ❑ waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El human beings, either directly or indirectly? 13 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 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. 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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ATTACHMENT "A" any physical development and therefore, will not generate impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 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 is 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 industrial 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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 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 15-02 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 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, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 22 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 ATTACHMENT "A" References 1. City of Rosemead General Plan (adopted 2008; amended 2010) 2. City of Rosemead General Plan EIR 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.aqmd.gov 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District 2008 Air Quality Data www.aqmd.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 ATTACHMENT "A" 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 to allow the addition of separate conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming residential structures subject to the approval of a Minor Exception application by the Planning Commission; 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 1 ATTACHMENT "B" G. The proposed Municipal Code Amendment would not be detrimental to the public convenience, health, safety, or general welfare of the City; and 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 new limitations on !legal nonconforming uses and structures that were previously approved by a discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception application process for the addition of new 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 significant impacts to the public and the environment. These standards require that an application for development must be accompanied with a signed and notarized written consent from all property owners of parcels abutting the subject property, and may be granted only after a public hearing before the Planning Commission. In conformance with Land Use Goal 1 (Maintain stable and attractive single-family residential neighborhoods), all poposals would be required to include any necessary work to maintain or improve the aesthetic appearance or architectural viability of any 2 ATTACHMENT "B" existing nonconforming structures onsite. 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 without creating an economic hardship for individual property owners. 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, any proposal for a residential expansion, involving existing legal nonconforming structures to be maintained on the property, 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. C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 proposes to 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. New residential development proposed on R-1 and R-2 lots that contain legal nonconforming structures must comply with current floor area ratio and density requirements indicated in both the Zoning Code and General Plan. 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. 3 ATTACHMENT "B" 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 ATTACHMENT "B" 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 ATTACHMENT "B" 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 ATTACHMENT "B" 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: 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 ATTACHMENT "B" 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. Addition of new structures on R-1 and R-2 lots where nonconforming residential structures exist. R-1 and R-2 lots may be expanded with additional separate residential units or related separate accessory structures, provided that the additional structures comply with the development standards and requirements of this Zoning Code. Such expansion shall be processed pursuant to the standards set forth in Chapter 17.142 (Minor Exceptions), with the following exceptions: 8 ATTACHMENT "B" 1. Supplemental Application Information. A completed application form for a Minor Exception pursuant to this Section shall be accompanied by the following: a. A reference to the provisions of this Chapter from which such property is sought to be excepted; and b. Written consent to the Minor Exception from all property owners abutting the property. Such written consent shall be on a form provided by the City and shall include the notarized property owner's signature. 2. Approval Procedure. A Minor Exception request in accordance with this Section may be granted only after a public hearing before the Planning Commission held pursuant to Chapter 17.156. All of the following findings shall be made by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the approval of the Minor Exception request: a. The applicant has obtained notarized written consent from all property owners of land abutting the subject property. b. The proposal includes all necessary work to eliminate any hazard or safety problem on an existing structure, as required by the Building Official or by an officer of the City charged with protecting the public safety, in order to correct an unsafe condition; c. The proposal includes the necessary work to maintain or improve the aesthetic appearance or architectural viability of the existing nonconforming structures onsite; d. The legal nonconforming residential unit(s). that exist onsite are solely nonconforming due to minimum residential unit floor area, setbacks, building separation, building height, entry treatment height, and second story architectural standards; e. The legal nonconforming residential accessory structure(s) proposed to remain onsite are solely nonconforming due to driveway width, turning radius, minimum stall size, setbacks, or landscaping; f. No previous discretionary permit has been approved for the subject site; and g. The subject lot does not require the approval of a Design Review entitlement. C. 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). 9 ATTACHMENT "B" 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 17.72.080.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. 11 ATTACHMENT "B" 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. D. 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. 10 ATTACHMENT "B" 17.72.090 Amortization. The Zoning Code gives the City Council the authority to establish Amortization Regulations for nonconforming uses, structures, and buildings. 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 _ 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 12 ATTACHMENT "B" B M o ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL CIVICP-RIDE` STAFF REPORT kbopoRATEA,09 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER Ai - DATE: JUNE 9, 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 MCA 15-02 is 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. It was originally drafted for the purpose of allowing the addition of new conforming residential structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that include existing legal nonconforming structures. However, upon hearing written and oral testimony at the duly noticed and advertised public hearing on April 6, 2015, the Planning Commission directed staff to eliminate the proposed standards regarding residential expansions on properties with existing legal nonconforming structures, and the item was continued to the meeting of May 18, 2015. After final discussion at the May 18, 2015 meeting, the Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-04, recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance 951, approving revised MCA 15-02 and amending Title 17 "Zoning" of the Rosemead Municipal Code without the proposed standards allowing the addition of new residential structures on properties with existing legal nonconforming structures. Ordinance 951 maintains all other proposed text in the amendment that is intended to improve the clarity and intent of the existing nonconforming standards. Ordinance 951 also proposes to eliminate the term and definition of "bachelor apartment" from Chapter 17.04, as the term is no longer accepted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The Planning Commission staff reports, meeting minutes, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-04 are included in this report as Attachments "A", "B", "C", "D" and "E", respectively. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Since the May 18, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Mayor has discussed the course of this project with staff. The Mayor asked that staff note that she is in favor of the original proposed language that was eliminated by the Planning Commission, and would d ITEM NUMBER: 14P\ ATTACHMENT "C" City Council Report June 9,2015 Page 2 of 6 like that the Council reconsider it as an option. The residential exception that was originally proposed is outlined below: B. Addition of new structures on R-1 and R-2 lots where nonconforming residential structures exist. R-1 and R-2 lots may be expanded with additional residential units or related accessory structures, provided that the additional structures comply with the development standards and requirements of this Zoning Code. Such expansion shall be processed pursuant to the standards set forth in Chapter 17.142 (Minor Exceptions) if the following findings can be made: 1. The proposal includes all necessary work to eliminate any hazard or safety problem on an existing structure, as required by the Building Official or by an officer of the City charged with protecting the public safety, in order to correct an unsafe condition; 2. The proposal includes the necessary work to maintain or improve the aesthetic appearance or architectural viability of the existing nonconforming structures onsite; 3. The legal nonconforming residential unit(s) that exist onsite are solely nonconforming due to minimum residential unit floor area, setbacks, building separation, building height, entry treatment height, and second story architectural standards; 4. The legal nonconforming residential accessory structure(s) proposed to remain onsite are solely nonconforming due to driveway width, turning radius, minimum stall size, setbacks, or landscaping; 5. No previous discretionary permit has been approved for the subject site; and 6. The subject lot does not require the approval of a Design Review entitlement for proposed dwelling unit size or increase in building pad or front yard elevation. It is the Mayor's opinion that if the residential exception is adopted, it could be reviewed within a year of its adoption to determine if it created any unintended consequences. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Conduct the noticed public hearing and receive public comment; 2) APPROVE, the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts (Attachment "F") finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and 3) As recommended by the Planning Commission, introduce for First Reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 951 (Attachment "G") approving MCA 15-02 and amending Chapters 17.04 and 17.72 of title 17 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code ATTACHMENT "C", City Council Report June 9,2015 Page3of6 relating to regulations for Nonconforming Uses, Structures, Lots, and Parking Facilities. 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 included in this report as Attachment "F"). 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. 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 Council is inclined to approve this project, the Council must make findings of adequacy with the environmental assessment and approve the Negative Declaration. 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 ATTACHMENT "C" City Council Report June 9,2015 Page 4 of 6 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. 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. In response to such residential project requests, staff prepared MCA 15-02, which was first presented to the Planning Commission on April 6, 2015. The amendment included revised language to improve the clarity of the existing nonconforming standards, and it also - proposed to allow the expansion of R-1 and R-2 lots with new conforming structures subject to both the existing density limitations and the Minor Exception application process. During the April 6, 2015 Planning Commission 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. At the May 18, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 15-04 recommending that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for the revised MCA 15-02. Both the original MCA 15-02, dated April 6, 2015, and revised MCA 15-02, dated May 18, 2015, have been included in this report as Attachments "H" and "I", respectively. ANALYSIS Ordinance 951 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. 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 Attachment "I." A final edited version is included in proposed Ordinance 951 (Attachment"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. ATTACHMENT "C" City Council Report June 9,2015 Page 5 of 6 • 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 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. 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 ATTACHMENT "C" City Council Report June 9,2015 Page 6 of 6 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. LEGAL REVIEW The attached Ordinance No. 951 has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Prepared by: Submitted by: ,_7(3"-Lz-c- U/J , Sheri Bermejo Michelle Ramirez City Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 6, 2015 Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 15, 2015 Attachment C: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated April 6, 2015 Attachment D: Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes, dated May 18, 2015 Attachment E: Planning Commission Resolution 15-04, dated May 18,2015 • = - -- - See ATTACHMENT "A" Attachment G: Ordinance 951 Attachment H: MCA 15-02, as submitted to Planning Commission on April 6, 2015 Attachment I: MCA 15-02 (Relating only to Chapter 17.72), as submitted to Planning Commission on May 18, 2015 ATTACHMENT "C" • , 3 S r •� 01 0 9 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION �'i:iiy54" r�. -CIVIC PRIDE _ , STAFF REPORT /4t,A -,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. ATTACHMENT "C" • Planning Commission Meeting April 6,2015 Page 2of4 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; • 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 ATTACHMENT "C" Planning Commission Meeting • April 6,2015 Page3of4 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 ATTACHMENT "C" 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 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; 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: ,A ' • j `' e. 4.41 c..0.-4444n-ep 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 • ATTACHMENT "C" • S E M F it- ka3 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION CIVIC PRIDE . STAFF REPORT ,t',5 N�RPORA7ED 1950 • TO: . HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD • • PLANNING COMMISSION • FROM: s PLANNING DIVISION DATE: MAY 18, 2015 ' SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15-02 AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 1732 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, 201'5 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 ATTACHMENT "C" Planning Commission Meeting • • May 18,2015 • Page 2 of 4 • • 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 "Fe, 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 jexceptions that were in included in the April 6 draft have been eliminated. . ATTACHMENT "C" • 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 tb 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. ATTACHMENT "C" Planning Commission Meeting May 18,2016 Page 4 of 4 B. The proposed amendment will riot 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 r iay 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 focal • 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; . Unteititi Sheri Bermejo Michelle Ramirez C 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 • ATTACHMENT "C" 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,Community Development Director Ramirez,City Planner Bermejo,and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Greg Murphy explained the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE • None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 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 Zoning 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: e 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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 they would 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. 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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 not meet 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 ATTACHMENT "C" 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 modem,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 ATTACHMENT "C" 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 ATTACHMENT "C" 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 asked what 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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 200612007. 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 B17.72.030 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 interior dimensions of 20 x 20 and LA County standards were less than that (18 x 18) but still is 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 come 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 not 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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 if 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 number of 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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 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. 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 and 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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 is written 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 accessory 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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 allows accessory but not a single- family unit. Chair Eng asked so currently property owners of R-1 and R-2 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, ATTACHMENT "C" • 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 are very 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 just 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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 that 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 Director Ramirez 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. • ATTACHMENT "C" 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 • ATTACHMENT "C" Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 18,2015 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 Lopez INVOCATION-Commissioner Tang ROLL CALL-Commissioners Herrera, Lopez,Tang,and Chair Eng OFFICIALS PRESENT— City Attorney Murphy, Community Development.Director Ramirez, City Engineer Fajardo, City Planner Bermejo,Associate Planner Valenzuela,and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Murphy explained the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS E ,y my O` 4.` A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15.02 AMENDI_NO`CHAPTERS 1704 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELAT kG'TO REGULATIONS FOR NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS,=AND PARKINGwFACILITIES tMunicipal Code Amendment 15-02 consists of a City initiated amendment to revise Ttl '17 (Zoning) ofthe Rosemead Municipal Code to modify existing regulations for nonconforming uses structures, to#s, and parking facilities. The code amendment• proposes to establish new deVefopmetegulations 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, wt1leimproving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship for=in^dividual 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." 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 Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is ATTACHMENT "C" 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. City Planner Bermejo presented the staff report. City Attorney Murphy addressed the Planning Commission and explained the procedural aspects of this item. Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang stated based on the revised Municipal Code Amendment<wf at are the legal nonconforming properties able to do now and what are they able to do under the revised code `-:::: City Planner Bermejo gave examples of what the current code allows` when's a Minor Exception process is possible,and the revisions in respect to parking. . Commissioner Tang asked City Planner Bermejo when she states that the draft Minor Exception from the last draft that was eliminated,which Minor Exception was that i 7j City Planner Bermejo stated what she just reviewed with the Planning Coinjnission was the current code and not the draft. She reiterated the provision that was presented at the Planning Cbiiimission meeting held on April 6, 2015, which would have allowed for additional structures without requiring the existing structures on site to be corrected. She stated there were standards that allowed the beeuttfication of the existing structures, the maintenance,the elimination of any type of building and safety issues that'en40 the structure not safe,and that was the main difference. Commissioner Tang asked if the current draft today contains this provision. City Planner Bermejo stated that provision has been removed,but it maintained the elimination of the definition for "bachelor apartment", and it has cleaned up some of the language. Commissioner Tangasked based on the new code doesthe:Minor Exception process still apply. City PlannerBermejo repliedyes, Commissioner Herrera asked if tl a Planning Commission is going to make a recommendation to City Council to accept thisttemwith our changes ojs this it Chair Eng replied that this is a recommendation to City Council with the changes. She requested clarifications on some of the languagethat is AetOroposed. She stated the first one is under "17.72.020 Establishment of legal nonconforming status,' ltern_A"-"and referred to "the change of ownership" and asked if something has been established as legal nonc'O forming,if there is a change in ownership, it does not change the status. City Planner Bermejo replied that is correct. Chair Eng referred to Item's B and C and read B. She expressed that section is concerning to her because there are a number of properties that may be non-permitted and this may provide a hardship for property owners if they have to abate immediately. ATTACHMENT "C" City Planner Bermejo explained that currently anything that does not have a permit is considered illegal and the intent of this section is to just put property owners on notice. She added if it is found that something is unpermitted staff and the Building Division continues to work with the property owner to see if it can be permitted through the current code. City Planner Bermejo stated it could also pertain to a use that is unpermitted that is a detriment to the City, the residents,and the community. Chair Eng stated she would like to make sure the City gives property owners the opportunity to correct safety issues and encourage property maintenance. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that the Planning Division.antl'Building Division works with the property owner and sets time frames that are achievable. Chair Eng referred to"17.72.030 Legal nonconforming uses, Item/:q and asked if there'.is an existing nonconforming structure and they want to build additional improvements,they hauethe ability.to do that as"long as it is brought up to current standards, - City Attorney Murphy explained that 17.72,030 deals with uses and 17.72 040 deals with structures. He added 17.72.030 would be seen more for non-residential properties'arid;it would be a use that used to be allowed for a particular zone and no longer is. He explained that legal noncorifkrAgOse would mean that as long as the use is maintained on that site you can't construct a r,:.ea building or start a=newuse. He stated 17:72.040 is the one that deals with actual structures and recommended the.Planning Commission move to that to answer their questions. Chair Eng stated she has the same concern for"177 72.040 Item 1" and asked'if"they want to make improvements, add on,and if they have a lot that`permits that,then theenonconformmg use or structure would have to be brought up to code under this new code City Planner Bermejo replied yes, for separate buildings' She explained for structures they still have the Minor Exception process for an enl_.a rgement of an x isting building Chair Eng asked if that would yonty a 5piyfo anything up ta;1.20`square feet. g - pR, City Planner Bermejo replied that wouIddepply to an existing legal nonconforming building that is only for building, it doesn't mean a setback or a development standard, they could do an enlargement to that building through the Minor Exception process. - Community Development Director Ramirez stated they could also do a second dwelling unit also known as a"granny flat". Chair Eng referred to"17.72.040 B 1. Enlargement"and asked if a structure is extended or enlarged on the interior, how will that not impact floor area. City Planner Bermejo explained that when floor area is referenced here this would not apply to a building that is nonconforming because it exceeds the maximum floor area ratio. Chair Eng referred to"17.72.080 D."read it and asked what it means. City Planner Bermejo explained that if they are in violation of their conditional use permit, this lets them know they are subject to either the City modifying their conditional use permit or revoking it. ATTACHjf)dZHPNT "C" City Attorney Murphy clarified that the Section Number should be"Section 17.72.800 A-C"and from legal perspective what this says is if you are a legal nonconforming use and you are approved by some kind of discretionary permit issue by a body like this, rather than a building or business permit,and if you are violating your permit, then prior to having any right to expand or change your structure, the City is going to make you come back and get back into compliance as part of that process. Chair Eng asked since this is an ordinance this is only applicable to R-1 and R-2. City Planner Bermejo replied this ordinance is City-Wide. Chair Eng referred to the City's Wireless Telecommunications Facility Ordinance;ari.d stated the City of Los Angeles recently updated their Wireless Ordinance for any new facilities to comply with earthquake safety. She asked staff if the City could add the same thing to the City of Rosemead's Wireless Facility.Ordinance for new facilities. City Attorney Murphy replied this is not something that can be done`through this ordinance. He recommended staff be given direction to research that and have the Community Development Director give a`report on what Los Angeles did at a future Planning Commission meeting. Chair Eng stated she would like to request staff direction'`to ee how much work would be involved and if it is something worth pursuing.She asked if there were any further'questions;,or comments for staff. None �_ rz Chair Eng asked for a motion. .. 7 Commissioner Tang made a_,motion, seconded by CoOrlisaroOkttopei,Commissioner to approve that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No 15.1)4 with findings,:a resolution'recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Negative.D:eciaration and.ADOPT Ordinance No, 935, amending Title 17 "Zoning" of the Rosemead Municipal C:de Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng,Herrera,Lopez,and Tang f�No• n one 40,-Abstain: Nome :Absent: None -:;: Community Development Director stated this item will be presented to the City Council and that there will not be an appeal process ate.his,time. t_ `r f Age B. DESIGN REVIEW403x. .Garvey Garden Plaza, LLC has submitted a Design Review application requesting to develop`a new residential/commercial mixed use development totaling 11,860 of retailloffice space on the first floor and 46 apartments on the second through fourth floors. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. Access to the proposed project will be provided by two driveways from Delta Avenue that extends along the west project boundary. The project includes a density bonus application under Senate Bill(SB)1818,which amended the state bonus law to allow density bonuses up to 35%. The property is located at the southeast corner of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay)zone. PC RESOLUTION 15.07 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ATTACHMENT "D" ATTACHMENT "C" ROSEMEAD,COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TOTALING 11,860 SQUARE FEET OF RETAILIOFFICE SPACE AND 46 APARTMENTS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8408 GARVEY AVENUE IN THE C-3 MUDO-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A MIXED USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No 15-07 with findings (Exhibit"A"); which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2015-29 (attached as Exhibit "B") approving Design Review 14.03 and recommending adoption Lof the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration(Exhibit"H"). Associate Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report and clarified two,(2)items -_The first is that the height of the building is four (4) stories at 45 feet not 49 feet. The second is that:aI:Tentative.Map is not being proposed or recorded,so staff would like to eliminate Condition of Approval numbarifo -seven 47 Chair Eng stated she has three items she would like to shareiwith'the Planning Commission°.and staff. The first is that the applicant's consultant Mr. Mike Lewis reached out tp hr about the project and that they had a met previously at Starbucks. At that meeting she informed him that sfe:1had not reviewed the staff report and was not prepared to share specific thoughts about the project. Mr. Levk also provided her color renderings, site and floor plans for the project at that meeting. The second item is tfat ;sf0'had walked the project site with Mayor Margaret Clark and a community member who has seismic congers about the project site being built in a liquefaction zone. Her third item is that she is acquainted with Mr.Willis Duong through community events and he did inform her about the project. In those conversations she did inform jl iiip to work directly with staff on his application and that she wanted to wait until she reviewed the staff report to:,learn the details of the project. She added she has not discussed the..details of this project with staff prior to this Planning Commission meeting. She asked the Planning Commission ff.there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang asked if a map could be shown to see what the six parcels look like. Associate Planner Valenzuela.stated stie.did not:have an aerial of the property but in the staff report, "Exhibit E" there is an Assessor's.jmap showing the six parcels Commis 5 ner Tang asked hat the current uses for the six parcels are AssociatE Planner Valenzuela replied they are mostly all residential. Commissioner.Tapg asked if it would be considered as two(2)commercial and four(4)residential. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Tang referredto'the parcel that is being split,the used car sales lot, and asked if that is two lots being combined into one. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied the used car sales lot is leasing that lot. Commissioner Tang referred to the 46 residential units being built and asked for a breakdown of how many bedrooms each unit will have. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied there will be 30 two-bedroom units, 15 three-bedrooms, and 1 one-bedroom unit(which is a managers unit). ATTACHMENT "C" • • Commissioner Tang asked where the loading and unloading zones for trucks are located. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied the Municipal Code permits trucks to load and unload in a standard parking stall. Commissioner Tang asked what if the truck is too big and does not fit in a standard parking stall. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied there is a Condition of Approval that limits the size of the truck. Commissioner Tang stated that only limits the height of the truck. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied it also states the width. • Commissioner Tang referred to Condition of Approval number 44,and stated it has a maximum height of 8'6" but does not have a width. He asked where those trucks would go todo deliveries. Chair Eng recommended looking at the site plan and that it` ay indicate the width of the drivewayto enter into the trash enclosures. Associate Planner Valenzuela stated that delivery trucks are generally 1;9'in length and will fit in a standard stall. Commissioner Tang stated his question is if the truckexceeds that size wlierewill they go to load or unload. City Engineer Fagardo explained that trucks that enter this sitewill typically be19'.in length (such as a UPS vehicle) and larger trucks will not be able to:enter this site. a, Commissioner Tang asked_if acommercialbusiness has alelivery from a larger truck where will they go to unload or unload.He asked if they:will just park on Delta'or Garvey'Ailenue. City Engineer Fajardo replied they would parionn Garvey Avenue. He stated that is an issue that will be researched further and staff will add anotherconditon of approvalif necessary. Commissioner Tang stated that 'was_�going to be his question if another condition of approval would be necessary. He explained that Delta Aveueis a small street for large trucks to make deliveries or to have access at the floor level of the site. Associate Planner Valenzuela stated the Municipal Code does not allow them to drive on Delta Avenue. Chair Eng asked currently where the loading is and unloading for commercial. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied it is not called out on the plans but on the final plans they will have a standard parking stall as a loading and unloading location. Chair Eng asked as a City is that something that is usually required, Associate Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Tang asked if that is located on the floor level parking lot. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied that is on the surface. ATTACHMENT "C" Commissioner Lopez asked if that is assuming it has to be entering from Garvey Avenue and not through Delta Avenue. He asked if everything that is unloaded is being backed up from Garvey Avenue. Chair Eng stated there is no entrance on Garvey Avenue. Commissioner Lopez asked if large trucks cannot use Delta Avenue where will they enter from. Associate Planner Valenzuela stated they can't park on Delta Avenue but they can enter from there. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the Condition of Approval specifically states no trucks are allowed. Chair Eng asked how is waste disposal addressed. Community Development Director Ramirez replied this is only pertaining.,to delivery vehicles.. Commissioner Tang referred to the rear abutting residential set-U_ack of 55'6"and asked what the;standard for a two- way traffic is. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied it is 25'for a two-way driveway.. City Engineer Fajardo referred to Condition'of Approval number86gand it is indicated that 28 feet would be the minimum width of the driveway. s ,. Commissioner Tang stated so they have exceeded that because whey are at 55feet. He asked staff to explain the density bonus that's given for the parking s aces for the residentia Community Development Director Ramirez.explained that there is a condition under SB 1818 that allows a reduction in parking spaces for residential units only when requestedythe applicant. Commissioner Tang asked if that would essentialiyrrtake these three concessions. Community:,Development-Director Ramirez replied no arid'explained that the parking reduction is not considered a concession" Commissioner Tang asked what private open pace is Associate PIanneoalenzuela replied but the response was not audible. Commissioner Tang referred to fhe-surface area parking on the site plan and there is a lot area of 3,960 square feet and asked what the area is:.f` Response was not audible..., Commissioner Tang referred to traffic and stated for post development it has been determined that the traffic flow will be heavily impacted and asked what some of the mitigation measures are for that. Traffic Consultant Itigaki replied that one of the Conditions of Approval refers to traffic signal improvements at Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue,which would help mitigate traffic impacts,at the location,in the future. Commissioner Tang asked what kind of signal improvements that would entail. ATTACHMENT "C" City Engineer Fajardo gave a brief summary of proposed improvements. Commissioner Tang asked if the bus stop located right in front of the proposed site on Garvey Avenue will remain or will it be removed. City Engineer Fajardo replied it will stay for now but if it is relocated they will need to request permission from MTA. Commissioner Tang asked how it will be determined that it will have to be relocated and is it based on post development traffic studies. City Engineer Fajardo replied traffic studies, complaints from residents, and_sometimes cars cannot turn right. He explained a field analysis is conducted to see what may be done and permission-`from MTA is necessary. Commissioner Tang referred to the Mitigation Declaration on Traffic asked how traffic volumes are forecasted and projected. ; I ? j Associate Planner Valenzuela replied that question can be;deferred to the Traffic Consultant. I Commissioner Tang asked if the City has ever conducted a post]development traffic study. Associate Planner Trinh replied no. City Engineer Fajardo recommended that is something to consider for in the future. Commissioner Tang stated he would.like to see that because of anticipated new developments coming in on Garvey Avenue and the potential impact.'on traffic . He referred to the Mitigated Declaration and stated that the area roadways will continue to operate within their design capacity and asked what is their design capacity. City Engineer Fajardo replied that is a question that can be deferred to the consultant. Commissioner)rig_referred to page,81 of the Mitigated._Deeclaration at the bottom and pointed out there is a mistake, it should be'eorrected to state"98 residential spaces"instead of"98 commercial spaces". Chair Eng asked if the floor planes all in one building. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes Chair Eng referred;tt`o_the commercial parking spaces with the standard of 1 per 250 and asked if restaurant use is being anticipated Associate Planner Trinh'replied the applicant is only proposing retail and office use She added if the applicant request restaurant use it will require more parking. Chair Eng asked what is the restaurant parking standard. Associate Planner Trinh replied it is 1 per 100. Chair Eng stated it is important that they prepare parking standards for restaurant use in the future. She referred to the soil report that was conducted in "2011"and asked if it is still current today. ATTACHMENT "C" Associate Planner Trinh replied yes and that staff contacted the State to verify. She added that through the Building Plan Check process the soils report will have to be updated. Chair Eng asked if that will have to be put into the conditions of approval. Associate Planner Trinh replied that there is a Mitigation Measure which requires the submittal of a soils investigation report. Chair Eng stated in the staff report it was mentioned there is a proposed hotel named- Hampton Inn and Suites and asked if that is in Rosemead and where is it being proposed. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it is only a pre-application:and staff has not received an actual application for it. She added its location would be on Walnut Grove Averiue`and Rush:Street,the triangle lot which is currently owned by Southern California Edison zoned as Open Space,;:(.OS). She stated.that the County has rejected the first review and that they are not allowing them to cover the wASIV,She explained that staffdoes not know if it will come back as an actual application at this time. '= Chair Eng referred to the Mitigation Measures regarding the report and:Lumbers 33,73,74,and:79 and asked if those comply with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act: it=. '_ Community Development Director Ramirez explainedthat this propertyisnot located in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. City Attorney Murphy clarified that while it is technically in the zone-,theway the Mitigated Negative Declaration reads is that this particular site because°.ofthe studies that the,MNDgrelies=on,states that the soil on the site is non liquefiable. He explained so,::while the site would technically be in theozone it would not have the same type of liquefaction impacts becauseof�the type of soil on the site_N Y`' ..a Chair Eng referred to theM.ND 3.8 regard.ing=Hydrolog and i ter Quality and stated there is a water plant owned by 9 _ .. Y the City of Monterey Parkrd:;askedx cif`that will"have..any=: pact or does the City have any record of reported Y sinkage from the parcels in question here' Associate Planner Trinh replied questions regarding the MND should be addressed by the consultant. Chair Eng referred to the percolation test thayyas that performed in March,and which will probably need to be addressed by the consultant,and asked what was its purpose and if there were any mitigations measures that came out of that test. She asked staff in anticipation of restaurant use will it be required that a clarifier be installed. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the application that has been submitted does not request a restaurant use and none of that has been taken into consideration. The Planning Commission can confirm with the applicant if they desire to make those changes or not. Chair Eng referred to Conditions of Approval number 11 and asked if appropriate agencies need to be included also or is it a given. Associate Planner Trinh replied it is a given. Chair Eng referred to the Construction Management Plan and Condition of Approval number 29. She asked staff if it is required that the applicant contact neighboring businesses and residents when construction begins. ATTACHMENT "C" Associate Planner Trinh replied yes, through the Construction Management Plan they will have to notice the ) residents and come up with a plan. Chair Eng asked what if they need to make accommodations or work with the adjacent businesses to minimize some of the impacts. Associate Planner Trinh asked what type of impacts Chair Eng is referring to. Chair Eng replied parking,deliveries,and if that is what is included as part of the Construction Management Plan. City Engineer Fagardo replied yes,that is part of the Construction Management Plan:. Chair Eng referred to MND Condition of Approval number 33 and. stated. that will be a question for the consultant. She referred to Condition of Approval number 38 and read the of Refuse Collection of 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. and the hours of loading building materials of 7:00 a.m.to1Q00 p.m. She expressed concerned because to the south of the site and that it is a residential neighborhood, She also expressed concern in regards to the construction haul route needs to stay off of Fern Street,whichS;very narrow and there are schools. She asked staff how it can be incorporated and if maybe it can be includedirrihe Construction Management Plan City Engineer Fajardo replied that prior to getting building per° .its,the:applieant will be required to submit a truck route for approval. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 46 and asked because_ ofwater conservation is it being limited to just water fixtures. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the Building Division will follow State law in regards to water conservation. Chair Eng read Condition;of Approval number 66 and asked staff if the developer is responsible for getting the sewer hooked up. City Engineer Fajardo replied Chair Eng read1Condition of Approval number 71 and asked who will be paying for that City Engineer Fajardo replied aederal grant from the State. Chair Eng referred to Conditions ofi Approval numbers 73 through 75 and asked if the consultant is a licensed Structural Civil Engineer. u . Associate Planner Trinh replied,yes. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 75 in regards to the soils report and asked if it is found that additional support is needed,who will be responsible for paying the additional mitigation. Community Development Director replied the applicant. Chair Eng asked if there were any further questions for staff. None ATTACHMENT "C" Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing. Representative Michael Lewis stated he is present on behalf of the applicant and presented a brief overview of the mixed-use project, concessions, density bonus, and showed a rendering of how the project will look when completed. He addressed the liquefaction issue and explained that the make-up of the soil is not conducive to liquefaction. He passed a site plan around to the Planning Commission showing the six lots, with the existing buildings and uses, and stated all of it will be removed for this project. He addressed the commercial loading and unloading and stated there is a condition limiting the truck height. He stated there is a signal light at Garvey and Del Mar and since there is not going to be any restaurants, no one will be coming in for,_aunch or dinner, and there won't be that type of traffic pattern for this project. Commissioner Tang asked how the traffic study was forecasted. Representative Lewis stated he can answer a previous question filet:Commissioner Tang had and shared that the City did require a post traffic analysis for the Wal-Mart project. I-le added the results were accurate in terms of what actually happened. Chair Eng asked if they envision any restaurant use. ; Representative Lewis replied there will not be sufficient parking to have restaurants. Chair Eng stated she does not want to restrict the project to not have it if It is,something they would want. She added there was a previous project located at Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue,the City put a specific limit in terms of restaurant square footage and asked if this is something the applicant would like jta consider. Representative Lewis stated he does not know if there is a way to add more parking for a restaurant and it has been calculated at the retail use and not restaurant use. Chair Eng asked Mr. Lewis if he would be willing to agree to a Condition of Approval for commercial property that there not be any restaurant use Representative. a ris replied yes,and they do not envision any restaurant use Chairpn.gasked staff if thatwil[work. CommunVDevelopment Director-tamirez replied yes. City Attorney IVItit y stated conditions of approval do not need to be written this evening because this item is a recommendation to City Council aptly when the Planning Commission makes their final recommendation just include direction for staff to adddIi condition. Chair Eng asked the applicant how long he has been working on this project. Simon Lee,AIA replied it has been 7 to 8 years. Chair Eng asked why they are building apartments instead of condominiums. Representative Lewis replied they believe there is a market for new apartments in this community. He stated that is Mr. Duong's business model he has other apartment buildings and knows how to run them successfully. He added it ATTACHMENT "C" is a nice option for younger families, the young professional,it is an excellent location, and has easy access onto the freeway. Chair Eng asked if a former market research was completed to support the demand for apartments. Representative Lewis replied yes. He added the rental rates are very affordable and 7 of them are set by the State. Chair Eng asked the anticipated rental rates for the two bedrooms and three bedrooms. Representative Lewis replied for the two bedroom units it would be $1000 - $1200;-and for the three bedrooms it would be$1500. . Chair Eng asked if the low income units would be set by statue. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Chair Eng asked about the HVAC plan for the project and if tfhecommercial and residential''units will have separate units. Architect Simon Lee replied each residential and commercial unit ill have::;its`own HVAC unit. Chair Eng stated that the plans anticipate solar panels in the future. Architect Simon Lee replied yes, he encourages the devefopetto,look into it because it is very rewarding. Chair Eng asked if that would power.the.commercial units or is there a main generator to receive all the energy. Architect Simon Lee repliedtthe proposalJis to•,have the solar energy utilize the common area first. Chair Eng asked Mr. Lewis-if Mr. Duong has developed'anya other mixed-use projects like this and if they have experience managing apartments. Representative Lewis replied he'`has<a mixed-use project down the street on Valley Boulevard but it does not have residential'properties instead it has officeand restaurant uses. Architect Simon Lee stated Mr.Doung has apartments in Monterey Park. Jimmy Duong,son to Mr. Duong stated they have about 100 apartment units,and have developed some townhomes and condominiums. He explained that he lives and manages a complex they built. He added they have a 78-unit apartment complex in Monterey Park. Chair Eng asked if that is an accumulation of different projects. Jimmy Duong replied they are three different parcels that are adjacent to one another. Chair Eng asked what Mr. Duong's management task consist of. Jimmy Doung replied maintenance for the building, repairs to small concerns, and they also manage commercial buildings. Chair Eng asked if it is a requirement to have an on-site manager. ATTACHMENT "C" Jimmy Duong replied anything over 20 units is required to have an on-site manager. Chair Eng asked how long they anticipate construction will take. Jimmy Duong replied about 1 1/2 years. Chair Eng asked if there is committed financing for this project. Jimmy Duong replied they need to get the entitlements before the bank gives them the:financing. Business owner Jimmy Wang stated he has had a business in the City of Roseitikad for over 33 years and is in favor and supports this project. Business Owner Sherman Rourman stated he own two lots adjacent to the car dealership at 8724 Garvey Avenue.He stated there is mortality and impact rate that needsito;be'addressed and expressed that getting in and out of his business is very dangerous. He requested a green zdrie'in front of his business to remove the traffic and parking concerns. Community Development Director Ramirez stated this request wdgld needto'go to the Traffic Commission and that the City Engineer,being at this meeting, is able to note this. '1 • Chair Eng stated that in the Construction Management Plan construction*acts will be taken into consideration for 1 adjacent businesses. '' adjacent 11:; Business owner of 10 years, Daniel pang stated he owns two properties with one'being on Delta Avenue and one on Walnut Grove. He stated he is in favor and supports this project, it will provide affordable housing for the younger generation,and it will beautify the City. Resident Tung Duong stated he has lived,in Rosemead for over 20 years and he supports this project. He stated it will bring business opportunities, bring up:the economy,,and bring job opportunities. Resident GebrgetkOrtAtated he has lived in Rosemead for over 10 years.He stated he runs a small construction company and�the majority oshis employees are Hispanic and locals. He is in favor of this project because it will give constr coon workers more opportunity to work. Business•awaer Sherman Rourrnaln=lequested his water rights be returned to him based on California Water Code 10910 and Califotnja Resource Co:* Geotechnical Engineer l aul,,Ktr stated he has 35 years of experience and he prepared the Geotechnical Engineering Investigationncfdding the liquefaction analysis for this site He stated the liquefaction analysis concluded that this site ket tbt have liquefaction potential because the soils are very strong. Chair Eng asked what had been done to get that conclusion and if test had been conducted. Geotechnical Engineer Kim replied yes liquefaction analysis testing was done and one major factor that is processed is the Standard Penetration Test(SPT)block count procedures and explained the technical details of the test. Chair Eng referred to the 0.79g peak acceleration vale and asked the Geotechnical Engineer to explain it. Geotechnical Engineer Kim explained using the SPT block count and the earthquake magnitude it is put into a ATTACHMENT "C" formula for liquefaction analysis. He added soil density is another factor used and that there are three factors used in the liquefaction analysis. Traffic Engineer Keith Rugerford explained the trip forecasting process. • Phil Martin from Phil Martin &Associates, Inc. stated he is present to answer questions in regards to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chair Eng referred to the Hydrology Report and asked what the Percolation Test was for and if it resulted in any type of mitigation. She also asked if the Water Plant adjacent to this project site has any:impact on this project. Consultant Phil Martin stated he will let the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer:Consultant answer the question about the Percolation Test because they conducted that test. He stated in regards_to=thg Water Treatment Plant next door they have not identified any potential impacts of being next door to this a,. Chair Eng asked Geotechnical Engineer Kim what is the PercolatjonT'est. Representative Lewis explained how the most recent changes,made.by the State for controlling storm water requires that you capture the first 3/4 inch of rainfall on your proper y,;l treat it and and,:tij,leh you can put it into:the storm drain system or you can percolate it into the aquifer. He explained!in order,to decide what technique to use to capture, filter, and clean the water the question was will it perk if you go infotheagiifer or will it not perk, and will we have to put it into the storm drain system. ''s Chair Eng asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item, l' None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing. She asked the Planning Commission is there were any more questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang requested a condition of approval that requires a Post Traffic Report. lopiTte made known to the City Council. Awr Community,. eVlopmer�t plrector Ramirez replied that recommendation can be ma y Commissioner Tang stated cuciently there:is a Garvey Avenue Specific Ad-Hoc Committee that is looking into development_along Garvey Avenue;and asked if this project somehow fits into that overall concept and plan. Community Development DirectoMamirez replied yes and explained that is why this side of Garvey was not included in the Sp ecifc Plan because:there was already a lot of development taking place and projects were coming in on their own. Chair Eng stated she likes tF,project, it is well thought out,the apartment sizes are comfortable,and young families need places to stay. She stated she is partial to single-family homes for home ownership but not everyone has the resources to own their home. She added this is a nice place for a young family to start out with amenities inside the unit,there is privacy with an outdoor patio,and it is very attractive for young professionals. She likes that this project is in a designated mixed-use node. Commissioner Tang stated he echo's Chair Eng's comments and he is partial to home ownership also. He added it builds communities but understands there is a great need for affordable housing. He stated there is a lot of work to do on Garvey Avenue and he is excited to see projects like this to bring livelihood to the community that has been long overdue. He realizes the applicant has been working on this project for 7 to 8 years and he hopes this project ATTACHMENT "C" will spruce up the local area as well as encourage the surrounding area to develop in the same way. He supports this project and would like to make a motion with the recommendations to City Council that have been discussed. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to approve that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 15.07 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2015-29 approving Design Review 14-03 and recommending adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion has been approved and wiill•be presented to the City Council with the recommendations for final approval. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 4-6-15 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seeiiiitteckby seconded Commissioner; Herrera, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of 4-16-15 as presented z- vim.. Vote resulted in: _ F Yes: Eng,`Herrera,.Lop ez and Tarr- No: =None rr Abstain: =None _`''=" Absent: None.. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF z. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the date, time, and location of the Community Area Watch Committee, Memorial Day Celebration,and'Public Safety Connection meeting and invited all to attend. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Tang asked the completion date of street sign replacements within the City. Community Development Director replied she will find out the requested information and send the ;Planning Commission an update. Chair Eng asked if at staff level if there has been preparation or discussion on the possibility of all the mixed-use projects on Garvey Avenue that have been approved,in regards to the timing of construction and the impact it will have in regards to traffic. She expressed if all four projects begin at the same time traffic will be congested. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that they are all proceeding at different rates and it is possible that they could eventually overlap. She stated the first mixed-use project that was approved by the Commission still has not submitted their plans to Building and Safety Division,while the second project has recently submitted to Building ATTACHMENT "C" and Safety Division. She explained they are all on different time frames and that is why the Construction Management Plan is in place,which the Building and Safety Division will look at. Chair Eng recommended and encouraged staff to look into this concern. She also requested a report be brought back to the Planning Commission regarding cell sites. Community Development Director Ramirez stated it will be brought back to the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Tang asked in regards to the four mixed-use projects when they were adopted with City Council does staff know if they were modified from the original recommendation that the Planning:.Commission approved. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that only three have gone to`City Council and there was one that was changed from apartments to condominiums but it was based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. • 7. ADJOURNMENT { .I Meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. j#• The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Mond4y,June 1,2015,at 7:00 p.m. Nancy Eng ' Chair • ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary ATTACHMENT "C" 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 ATTACHMENT "C" 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), ATTACHMENT "C" 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 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: ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, AND TANG NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE • ATTACHMENT "C" 1 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: ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, AND TANG NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Michelle G. Ramirez, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gregory M. Murphy, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP ATTACHMENT "C" 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 ATTACHMENT,"C" 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 ATTACHMENT "C" 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. 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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 ATTACHMENT "C" • 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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: 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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). ATTACHMENT "C" ' 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. 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 ATTACHMENT "C" 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 17.72.080.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. ATTACHMENT "G" ATTACHMENT "C" 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 • ATTACHMENT "C" DRAFT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15-02 • Strike-thoughfUnderllne Version Amendment to Title 17. Article 1. Chapter 17.04, Section 17,04.050 (Definitions) of the Rosemead Municipal Code ".-• .- • e e e - - __ - _ Amendment to Title 17,Article 4, Chapter 17.72 of the Rosemead Municipal Code 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. .1 - ! - - - - ., .. - `• - - . - - • 17,72.060 Legal nonconforming lots, • 17.72.060 Reconstruction of damaged legal nonconforming buildings. 17.72.070 Residential Exceptions. 17.72.060 Loss of legal nonconforming status, 17.72.090 Amortization. 17.72.010 Purpose. A. •- _ _ _ _ - _-- _• - -._ - "S— _ _ "e- •e-conforming land use& or future amendments thereto. expanded, or replaced, while allowing for imprevements to their appearance. 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 ATTACHMENT "C" 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 17.116-060(Skins) of this Title. 1 • - • thereon. 17.72.020 Establishment of legal nonconforming status. A. These provisions shall regulate the continuation, termination, 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 owners 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 ma be established or no new building ma 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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 fisted 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 . - _- --. e-•-e• - e - 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 sera.es. A residential •ara•a that is nonconformini 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 structure that does not require more parking than the original 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. 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, provided the folfowing 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 Uco Pcrmitc discretionary permit approvals in effect. ATTACHMENT "C" ___ _ •• . A use that was authorized by an approved discretionary permit but is not allowed by this Zoning. Code may continue in compliance with the original discretionary permit conditions of approval. The Variance or Conditional Use Permit, 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 requires the approval of the appropriate discretionary permit in accordance with the provisions of this Zoning, Code. 17.72.040 Legal nonconforming structures. A. Except for the provisions set forth'in Section 17.72.090 (Residential Exceptions), as long as a nonconforming building or structure exists upon any tot, no new building or structure may be established or constructed thereon. B. Alterations or additions. The interior alteration and structure enlargement; or expansion, - --- _ "-e• _ of a nonconforming structure that is occupied by a conforming use shall be subject to the following: has become nonconforming due to setbacks, floor area, height, or other similar develepment 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. ATTACHMENT "C" 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. may undergo changes in use subject to the provisions listed below. parking requirements, may be changed to another use which requires more parking than Parking and Loading). ILL- .. ... _ .._ -.e• :o- •- - - - _ _ - . I -- - - _. _- _ _ _ ••• • ._: •s have been issued for the subject dwelling, on the subject property, and 3. The proposed addition_ rdo- •_ 7 .- u_ _ - _ -..-• 0• •_ -.. _. _ =='",, ,, - -e- i. • ._ _• a .• - i- - -- -- es - .' _• . -.lee. .e = e _ • - - - • . - _ - - . . - t - . (Moved to Section 17.72.030 Legal Nonconforming uses.) A - - - - - •• . e.: _ _ _ _ - .. • .• -- :. San_ e. •_ _ e- _ - - - - - - - - e— -e' (such as turning radius, size, landscaping, •' - ! A _ - •a •- • -- - _ - _. _ _ -• City standards. 17.72.0760 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: ATTACHMENT"C" 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 this 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, Addition of new structures on R-1 and R-2 lots where nonconforming residential structures exist. R-1 and R-2 lots may be expanded with additional residential units or related . accessory structures, provided that the additional structures' comply with the development standards and requirements of this Zoning Code. Such expansion shall be processed pursuant to the standards set forth in Chapter 17.142 (Minor Exceptions) if the following findings can be made: ATTACHMENT "C" 1. The proposal includes all necestary work to eliminate any hazard or safety problem on an existing structure, as required by the Building Official or by an officer of the City charged with protecting the public safety, in order-to correct an unsafe condition: 2. The proposal includes the necessary work to maintain or improve the aesthetic • appearance or architectural viability of the existing nonconforming structures onsitel 3. The legal nonconforming residential unit(ss that exist onsite are solely nonconforming due to minimum residential unit floor area, setbacks, building separation, building height. entry treatment height, and second story architectural standards: 4. The legal nonconforming residential accessory structure(s) proposed to remain onsite are solely nonconforming due to driveway width, turning radius, minimum stall size, setbacks, or landscaping: 5. No previous discretionary permit has been approved for the subject site; and 6. The subject lot does not require the approval of a Design Review entitlement for proposed dwelling unit size or increase in building pad or front yard elevation. C. 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. Ail 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 tine 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 that 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). ATTACHMENT "C" 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. D. 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 nonresidential 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. 17.72.4-0080 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.rn., 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 ATTACHMENT "C" 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. 1 7.72.090 Amortization. The Zoning Code gives the City Council the authority to establish Amortization Regulations for nonconforming uses, structures,and buildings; • • • • • ATTACHMENT "C" • DRAFT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15-02 (As Revised by Planning Commission) 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. 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 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 -• - - e - - and structures. These arc land uses and structures within the City that were lawfully or future amendments thereto. 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, TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4—SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 1 ATTACHMENT "C" 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..116-968 (Signs)of this Title. .I . thereon. 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. 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. TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 12 ATTACHMENT "C" 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 subiect 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 - • _ •_• . _ • __.• •- _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 . - '_• - , _e•e' 'e•. - - "- discretionary permit approvals in effect. where it was previously authorized by a zone variance or conditional use permit, so long TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4—SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 13 ATTACHMENT "C" 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 in compliance with the original discretionary permit conditions of approval. Th- - •_- : _ -• -- - Permit, 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, 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. TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4--SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 14 • ATTACHMENT "C" 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. .! - ! _ - - - •- - - (Moved to Section 17.72.030) A. Land use changes in Nonresidential zones. may undergo changes in use subject to the provisions listed below. 1. The use of a structure, which is only nonconforming duc to lack of compliance with off street parking requirements, may be changed to another use as long as the now use.i; 2. The use of a structure, which is nonconforming due to lack of compliance with off street the current use within the structure if it can be demonstrated through the application and Parking and Loading). B. Residential single family dwelling:, 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 usc on the subject property, and •3. -- - --- --- - -- - , e - e • e - _••_• e. -- ' e ee preclude future construction of an enclosed garage per the City's Zoning Code. . .! . ! • - . • - - - .. . . _ - . (Moved to Section 17.72.030 Legal Nonconforming uses.) parking lot, parking structure, or residential garages (such as turning radius, size, landscaping, ate.) may be used to serve a new usc that does not require more parking than the original use, Director, or Building and Safety Official, or City Engineer shall be made to conform to current 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: TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4--SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 15 ATTACHMENT "C" 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; 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, 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). • TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 16 ATTACHMENT "C" 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 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 TITLE 17-ZONING ARTICLE 4-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS 17 ATTACHMENT "C" 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 17.72.080.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 8 ATTACHMENT "C" FINAL DRAFT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15-02 Strike-though/Underline Version Note: • Strikethrough text is text to be eliminated. • Single underlined text is the new/amended text proposed at the June 9, 2015 City Council meeting. • Double underlined text is the new/amended text added since the June 9, 2015 City Council meeting. Amendment to Title 17, Article 1, Chapter 17.04, Section 17.04.050 (Definitions) of the Rosemead Municipal Code dwelling or apartment house, occupied or suitable for occupancy as a residence for one living room and sleeping with no separate bedroom. Amendment to Title 17, Article 4, Chapter 17.72 of the Rosemead Municipal Code 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. A. •- _ -• - — -• - - • e. - -• e e. •e -- e ••••: e . would be prohibited, regulated or restricted differently under the current terms of this title or future amendments thereto. 1 ATTACHMENT "D" limiting the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, while allowing for improvements to their apperance. 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 17.116069 (Signs) of this Title. •.. thereon, 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. 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. 2 ATTACHMENT "D" 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 _. 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 structure that does not require more parking than the original 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. 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, 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 ATTACHMENT "D" 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 Permits discretionary permit approvals in effect. No use, building, or structure shall be defined as nonconforming for the purpose hereof, as thc use, building, or structure conforms with thc terms and conditions of thc variance or conditional use permit. A use that was authorized by an approved discretionary permit but is not allowed by this Zoning Code may continue in compliance with the original discretionary permit conditions of approval. Th- - • - - -- - -•- - - Permit, 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 requires the approval of the appropriate discretionary permit in accordance with the provisions of this Zoning Code. 17.72.040 Legal nonconforming structures. A. Except for the provisions set forth in Section 17.72.090 (Residential Exceptions), 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. 4 ATTACHMENT "D" 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. compliance with alternative parking provisions, as set forth in Chapter 17.112 (Off Street Parking and Loading). 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: •- - --- -- --- -• -- - - ---e e•- •- - - • . ! . ._ - -- - - •- 2. There has been no conversion of required automobile parking spaces to any other use on the subject property, and •3. •- - --- -e -e:• •e• e e e , e - - - -- -• •- -- - - -- , preclude future construction of an enclosed garage per the City's Zoning Codo. • . - - - - . _ - _ '. - _ . (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, 5 ATTACHMENT "D" 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. 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 this 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. 6 ATTACHMENT "D" 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 per-miffed subject pursuant to the standards set forth in Chapter 17.142 (Minor Exceptions). B. Addition of new structures on R-1 and R-2 lots where nonconforming residential structures exist. R-1 and R-2 lots may be expanded with additional separate residential units or related separate accessory structures, provided that the additional structures comply with the development standards and requirements of this Zoning Code. Such expansion shall be processed pursuant to the standards set forth in Chapter 17.142 (Minor Exceptions), with the following exceptions: 1. Supplemental Application Information. A completed application form for a Minor Exception pursuant to this Section shall be accompanied by the following: a. A reference to the •rovisions of this Chaster from which such •ro•ert is sou•ht to be excepted: and b. Written consent to the Minor Exception from all property owners of land abutting the prosert . Such written consent shall be on a form provided by the City and shall include the notarized property owner's signature. 2. Approval Procedure. A Minor Exception request in accordance with this Section may be granted only after a public hearing before the Planning Commission held pursuant to Chapter 17.156. All of the following findings shall be made by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the approval of the Minor Exception request: a. The applicant has obtained notarized written consent from all property owners of land abutting the subject property. b. The proposal includes all necessary work to eliminate any hazard or safety problem on an existing structure, as required by the Building Official or by an officer of the City charged with protecting the public safety, in order to correct an unsafe condition; c. The proposal includes the necessary work to maintain or improve the aesthetic appearance or architectural viability of the existing nonconforming structures onsite; d. The legal nonconforming residential unit(s) that exist onsite are solely nonconforming due to minimum residential unit floor area, setbacks, building separation, building height, entry treatment height, and second story architectural standards; e. The legal nonconforming residential accessory structure(s) proposed to remain onsite are solely nonconforming due to driveway width, turning radius, minimum stall size, setbacks, or landscaping; f. No previous discretionary permit has been approved for the subject site; and g. The subject lot does not require the approval of a Design Review entitlement for proposed dwelling unit size or increase in building pad or front yard elevation. 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 7 ATTACHMENT "D" V 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 that 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. 17.72.100080 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 8 ATTACHMENT "D" 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. 9 ATTACHMENT "D"