ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM JEFF ALLRED CITY MANAGER DATE JUNE 9 2015 6 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 1502 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 R1 and R2 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 1504 recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance 951 approving revised MCA 1502 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 1504 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 ITEM NUMBER F

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 R1 and R2 lots where nonconforming residential structures exist R1 and R2 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 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 1502 and amending Chapters 17 04 and 17 72 of title 17 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code

City Council Report June 9 2015 Page 3 of 6 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 20day 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

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 1502 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 R1 and R2 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 R1 and R2 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 1502 Both the original MCA 1502 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 direction the residential exceptions that were in included in the April 6 draft have been eliminated The following is an outline of the key elements of the proposed Ordinance The redlinestrikeout version of proposed MCA 1502 has been attached as Attachment T 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

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 13 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

City Council Report June 9 2015 Paoe 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 1502 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 greater1000 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 Sheri Bermejo City Planner Submitted by dull Michelle Ramirez 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 1504 dated May 18 2015 Attachment F Initial Study and Negative Declaration 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

ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM PLANNING DIVISION DATE APRIL 6 2015 SUBJECT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 1502 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 R1 and R2 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 1502 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 A

Planning Commission Meeting April 6 2615 Paae 2 of 4 A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was distributed for a 20day 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 longterm 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 A

Planning Commission Meeting April 6 2015 Page 3 of 4 nonconforming structures including interior alterations repairs and maintenance and some enlargements subject to the Minor Exception application process However the current code also sets a limitation that as long as a nonconforming use building or structure exists upon any lot no new use building or structure may be established Although this limitation is standard in most cities nonconforming use and structure ordinances it has led a number of Rosemead residents to inquire about requests for Zone Variances to allow them to retain existing nonconformities and expand the property with additional singlefamily 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 1502 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 redlinestrikeout version of proposed MCA 1502 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 R1 Single Family Residential and R2 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 andor 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 A

Planning Commission Meeting April 6 2015 Pape 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 1502 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 Cade Requirements Article 6 Chapter17 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 Section17 152 060 13 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 Commission feels they are or are not met during the public hearing each of the findings and the reasons the Staff will be available to assist as necessary 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 1000 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 Sheri Bermejo City Planner Michelle Ramirez Community Development Director EXHIBITS A Initial Study and Negative Declaration B UnderlineStrikeout version of proposed MCA 15 02 C Final Edited version of proposed MCA 1502 ATTACHMENT A

ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO FROM HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DIVISION DATE MAY 18 2015 SUBJECT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 1502 AMENDING CHAPTERS 17 04 AND 17 72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR NONCONFORMING USES STRUCTURES LOTS AND PARKING FACILITIES Summary Municipal Code Amendment 15 02 consists of a City initiated amendment to revise Title 17 Zoning of the Rosemead Municipal Code to modify existing regulations for nonconforming uses structures lots and parking facilities The code amendment proposes to establish new development regulations for legal nonconforming uses that were approved by a discretionary entitlement The purpose of the amendment is to encourage the City s continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used expanded or replaced while improving the health safety and welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship for individual property owners or business owners Lastly Municipal Code Amendment 1502 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 R1 and R2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming residential structures The revised MCA 1502 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 B

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 20day 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 1504 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 R1 Single Family Residential and R2 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 R1 and R2 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 R1 and R2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming residential structures The Planning Commission staff report dated April 6 2015 and meeting minutes are attached as Exhibits E and F respectively Analysis The revised text of Municipal Code Amendment 1502 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 direction the draft have been eliminated residentialie that were in included in the April 6 ATTACHMENT T

Planning Commission Meeting May 18 2015 Page 3 of 4 The following is an outline of the key elements of the proposed Ordinance The redlinestrikeout version of proposed MCA 1502 has been attached as Exhibit A A final edited version is attached as Exhibit G Section 17 72 020 Establishment of Nonconforming Status is proposed to reinforce the property owner s responsibility to provide evidence to the City to justify the establishment of nonconforming rights For example this would include completing a Los Angeles County building record search and submitting original permit documents for structures that were built prior to the City s incorporation Existing standards were regrouped into Section 17 72 030 Nonconforming uses Section 17 72 040 Nonconforming structures Section 17 72 070 Residential Exceptions to improve overall organization for ease of finding applicable code regulations Municipal Code Amendment adds text to clarify that any use that was authorized by an approved discretionary permit but is not allowed by the current Zoning Code is nonconforming and may only continue in compliance with the original discretionary permit conditions of approval Section 17 72 040 Legal Nonconforming Structures was expanded to allow any building that was approved with a discretionary permit the possibility of expanding subject to the Minor Exception application process Lastly Municipal Code Amendment 1502 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 Chapter17 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 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 1502 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 B

Planning Commission Meeting May 18 2015 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 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 1502 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 1502 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 1000 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 Sheri Bermejo City Planner Michelle Ramirez Community Development Director EXHIBITS A Final UnderlineStrikeout version of proposed MCA 1502 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 1502 ATTACHMENT B

Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 6 2015 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Eng at700 pm in the Council Chambers 8838 E Valley Boulevard PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tang INVOCATION ROLL CALL Chair Eng 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 R2 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 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 twentyfive 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 setbacks 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 11

City Planner Bermejo explained for example if you had a lot in the R1 zone the R1 density is that you get a single family home for each6000 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 R1 it is one unit with a granny unit by statue City Planner Bermejo replied typically that is how most cities regulate zoning R1 but Rosemead allows more than one 1 on an R1 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 dwelling unit and that is different from what is being discussed this evening the second 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 R1 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 R1 and R2 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 notjust the Minor Exception applications Community Development Director Ramirez stated to answer Chair Eng s question it is approved by hear at a level staff 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 R1 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 andor landscape if it needed City Attorney Murphy stated when the Minor Exception process started it was initially because of side yard setbacks and a few other issues but primarily set backs He stated the way the City Ordinance reads with legal nonconforming structures you could not really upgrade or update a home make it modern add a family room add a second story if the house was into the current setback He continued that some of the current setbacks 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 singlestory homes of unusual height and setbacks 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