Note: There may be a few “typo’s” and glitches…but at least you can get the idea.
Agenda Item #: 3a.
Meeting Date: May 10, 2011
Report Date: May 6, 2011
CITY OF LIVINGSTON PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY FILE NUMBER: Determine General Plan Consistency and Make Recommendation to
City Council Concerning Modification of Livingston Municipal Code (LMC) 5-6-5(C) Nonconforming Uses of Land
PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide
PROPOSED ACTION: Approval of Resolution 2011-_, a Resolution determining General
Plan consistency and making recommendation to the City Council.
PREPARED BY: Donna M. Kenney, Community Development Director
*** x �*** **
There is no agricultural zoning within Livingston city limits and farming is prohibited in all zoning districts except Parks/Open Space, which requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Land Use Table 3 Commercial Zoning. After staff was contacted by farmer and sweet potato processor Blaine Yagi about his desire to farm a commercially zoned property at Hammatt Avenue and Campbell Blvd., a letter of determination was sent to him by staff stating the City’s position on farming within city limits. Mr. Yagi appealed staff’s determination to the City Council within 10 days of the date of the letter and the item was placed on the April 5, 2011 regular Council agenda for discussion.
Staff has had several communications with various property owners in recent years; however, the issue of planting row crops on a former nonconforming orchard site has not been resolved by Council. Therefore, staff issued a formal determination that the right to use the property for agricultural uses ceased upon removal of the peach orchard, based on the City’s nonconforming use provisions.
At their regular meeting of April 5, 2011 the City Council denied Administrative Appeal 2011-01 by a 4-1 vote and directed staff to provide a Resolution of Intent to place this item on an upcoming Planning Commission agenda pursuant to LMC 5-6-2 B (2) so that the Commission may take public comment, can determine General Plan consistency of any proposed changes and make recommendation to the City Council. At their regular meeting of April 19, 2011, City Council approved Resolution of Intent 2011-26 by a vote of 4-0. Council Member Samra recused himself from this item and was not present for the vote. It is expected that staff and the Planning Commission will be analyzing the definition of “Agriculture” located in LMC 5-2-3 (1), the proper zoning for agriculture, and LMC section 5-6-5 relating to legal nonconforming uses.
Livingston Municipal Code 5-2-3 (1) defines “Agricultural” as:
“The cultivation and tillage of soil; the production, irrigation, cultivation (including horticultural), growing, harvesting, and processing of any commercial agricultural commodity, including farming, dairying, pasturage, agriculture, husbandry, and timber; the lawful application of chemicals including, but not limited to, the application of pesticides, the raising of livestock, fish or poultry, and any practices performed by a farmer and on a faun incidental to or in conjunction with such operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market, or to carriers for transportation to market, and all activities or facilities related thereto. Such operations may occur during any twenty-four hour period of the day.”
Agricultural is very broadly defined in the Livingston zoning code and the range of permitted uses includes all farming activities for 24 hours per day, every day. All farming activities have potential impacts, some of which can be easily mitigated (like water trucks for dust control or spraying chemicals on windless days), some of which cannot (like livestock odors or tractor noise).
EXISTING LAND USE TABLE:
Table 3 – Land Use — Commercial Zoning
R-ER-1 R-2 R-3
C-1 DTCC-2 C-3
M-1 M-2 P-F P/OS
Agriculture is conditionally permitted in the Parks/Open Space zone (line from chart above) and as an existing non-conforming use when property is annexed and rezoned. Staff contacted the following cities and received information on Merced County to see how their Codes address Agricultural and/or Non-Conforming uses:
1. City of Dos Palos – Does not permit farming by right or use permit in any of its zoning districts. It does permit existing nonconforming agricultural uses to continue to be farmed like Livingston does. Does not have a copy of its municipal code online.
2. City of Los Banos —- Does not have a definition for “Agricultural.” Does not have an agricultural zoning classification within city limits. However, Section 9-3.603(e) allows “crop and tree farming” with a Conditional Use Permit in the R-1 Low Density zoning district.
9-3.2201(b) NONCONFORMING USES. Discontinuance: Subsequent Uses. If any
nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building shall conform to the provisions of this chapter for the district in which such land or building is located. If any use is wholly discontinued for any reason, except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law, for a period of one year, it shall be conclusively presumed that such use has been abandoned within the meaning of the provisions of this chapter, and all future uses shall comply with the provisions of this chapter for the district in which the land or building is located. (Ord. 342, as amended by Ord. 1095, eff. November 20, 2010)
3. City of Gusting – Allows crop production (horticulture, orchard, vineyard) within the R-E and R-1 residential zoning districts by right (no CUP required). In addition, the city has an
A-C (Agricultural-Commercial) zoning designation which allows a much greater range of
agricultural uses (some by CUP and some by right) including general agriculture, orchards, vineyards, dairy, greenhouses, energy production facilities, etc. The rest of the zoning designations in the city prohibit these uses.
Agricultural Product Processing and Storage. The processing and/or interim storage of harvested crops to prepare them for on-site marketing or processing and packaging elsewhere. Examples of this land use include the following: alfalfa cubing, corn shelling,
cotton ginning, custom grist mills, custom milling of flour, feed and grain, dairies (but not
feedlots, see instead “Livestock Operations, Sales Yards, Feedlots, Stockyards”), drying of corn, rice, hay, fruits and vegetables, grain cleaning and custom grinding, hay baling and cubing, pre-cooling and packaging of fresh or farm-dried fruits and vegetables, sorting, grading and packing of fruits and vegetables, tree nut hulling and shelling. This definition does not include wineries, which are separately defined.
Agricultural animal means, but is not limited to, horses, ponies, mules, burros, jacks and
jennies, cows, bulls, ducks, chickens, calves, heifers, sheep, goats, swine, hogs or pigs but excepting one potbellied pig kept as a household pet in a sanitary manner and otherwise in ;accordance with the provisions of this chapter, or other animals ordinarily utilized for; agricultural poses.
Agricultural zone means any premises within the city which has been zoned for: ,agricultural uses as established by the official zoning ordinance of the city.
Nonconforming use of a vacant parcel.
(1) If any parcel without any structures of any kind is used for any purpose which is not in compliance with the applicable provisions of the subject zoning district, the use may
continue for a maximum period of three years after June 21, 1965.
(2) After the expiration of the three-year period, the parcel shall be used only in compliance with the applicable provisions of the subject zoning district.
Loss of Nonconforming Status.
A. Termination by discontinuance.
1. If a nonconforming use of land or a nonconforming use of a conforming structure is
discontinued for a continuous period of six (6) months or more, except in compliance with a valid order of a court of law, all rights to legal nonconforming status shall terminate and all future uses shall be in compliance with the applicable regulations for the subject zoning district.
2. The Planning Director shall base a determination of discontinuance on evidence including the removal of equipment, furniture, machinery, structures, or other components of the nonconforming use, disconnected or discontinued utilities, or no business records to document continued operation.
3. Any Bother use of the site or structure shall comply with all of the regulations of the
applicable zoning district and all other applicable provisions of this Zoning and Subdivision
4. City of Atwater – Does not have a definition for “Agricultural.” Does have an Agricultural zoning district but does not currently have any properties zoned as such within city limits.
Atwater has only one active farm that is classified as an existing nonconforming use.
5. City of Merced Does not have a definition for “Agricultural.” Does have an A-T-5 Agricultural zoning district with a minimum lot size of 5 acres (no large animals) and an A-
T-20 Agricultural zoning district with a minimum lot size of 20 acres (allows some large animals for educational purposes by a governmental agency).
6. City of Turlock – Contacted twice but did not respond to staff. The information below isfrom their website:“Agricultural use” shall mean the tilling of the soil, the raising of crops, horticulture, viticulture, dairying and small livestock farming including all uses customarily incidental thereto; but excluding slaughter houses, fertilizer yards, transport businesses for agricultural hauling, bone yards or plants for the reduction of animal matter or any other industrial use which is similarly objectionable because of noise, odor, smoke, dust, or fumes. (Also, see “Livestock.”)
9-2-404 Loss of Nonconforming Status.
A nonconforming use which ceases or a nonconforming structure that is unoccupied for a
continuous period of twelve (12) months shall lose its legal nonconforming status. The
premises on which the nonconforming use is located shall then be used for conforming uses and the nonconforming structure shall be removed or altered to conform unless a
Conditional Use Permit is obtain in accordance with Article 6 of Chapter 9-5: Conditional Use Permits and Variances.
7. Merced County –
Agricultural Operation. “Agricultural operation, activity, facility or appurtenances thereof’
means and includes, but not be limited to, the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural commodity including timber, viticulture, apiculture, horticulture, or floriculture, the raising of livestock, fur-bearing animals, fish, or poultry, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as incident to, or in conjunction with such farming operations.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT THE LIVINGSTON ZONING CODE
Currently, under Livingston Municipal Code (LMC) section 5-6-5, if a legal nonconforming use of land ceases for more than six (6) months the use of the land must conform to the zoning code and the nonconforming use cannot continue. As seen above, the legal nonconforming section is usually found in Zoning Codes in order to allow property owners to continue using their property in the same manner as they were at the time of a Zoning Code change. However, most legal nonconforming sections indicate a certain period of time that a use can cease before it has to comply
with the new Zoning Code. This is used in order to help move properties towards the new “vision” of the Zoning Code and General Plan which was adopted by the City. If this time limitation was not included, it would be difficult to implement Zoning Code changes.
However, due to the nature of farming, periods of inactivity are normal and part of the business. This has resulted in the loss of the legal nonconforming status by many properties within the City that were used for agriculture, such as the property owned by Mr Yagi.
City staff considered various approaches to allow legal nonconforming uses of land to continue after the use has ceased for six (6) months or more. Staff concluded that it is not necessary to revise the definition of agriculture or to amend the land use table in the zoning code. Rather, staff concluded that amending LMC section 5-6-5(C), regulating nonconforming uses of land, is a more direct approach. This approach allows properties that were used for agricultural uses which have lost their status as legal nonconforming due to a period of inactivity to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would permit them to continue farming.
The proposed amendment would limit those who may receive a CUP for agricultural use to applicants who have used their land for agricultural use within the last two (2) years. If the property meets the criteria, the Planning Commission would then review the CUP application and consider whether the use of that property for agriculture is compatible with the surrounding area.
This approach addresses the legal nonconforming issue. A more permissive approach to agricultural use within the City would require more substantial changes to the Zoning Code and may have additional CEQA implications.
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations) as there are no new impacts that were not addressed in the 1999 General Plan EIR. The proposed activity is within the 1999 General Plan and the program EIR adequately describes the proposed activity for the purposes of CEQA. All applicable mitigation measures in the 1999 General Plan EIR apply to this project.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
This Project is consistent with the 1999 General Plan and 2025 General Plan Update Commercial Land Use Policy 3.1A 6: The Conditional Use Permit process with its four findings required for approval shall be used where site conditions or project location will affect land use compatibility. The four findings for a CUP approval are:
1. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all walls, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and other features required by the applicable zoning district.
2. The site for the proposed use is served by streets and highways adequate to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
3. Public facilities are currently adequate to serve the proposed use or improvements are included in an approved Capital Improvement Plan or otherwise will be completed prior to the issuance of building permits.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan.
In addition to these four findings, the amended code provision requires two additional findings. The two additional findings are:
1. Resolution 2011-
The applicant has provided substantial evidence to establish that the subject property described in the permit application was used for agricultural purposes, as a legal years preceding the application date, and for no fewer than two (2) years out of the five (5) years preceding the application date.
The granting of a Conditional Use Permit to allow agricultural use of the land described in the permit application will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property orimprovements in the vicinity.
, a Resolution Determining General Plan Consistency and Making
Recommendation to the City Council
2. City Council Resolution of Intent dated April 19, 2011
3. Vacant Large Parcel Map
4. LMC 5-3
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON
RECOMMENDING MODIFICATION OF LMC 5-3 TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND RECOGNIZING CONSISTENCY OF THE AMENDMENT WITH THE LIVINGSTON
WHEREAS, the City Council desired Planning Commission review of an amendment to amend, repeal, or replace a section of Title 5 of the Livingston Municipal Code (LMC) so that agricultural uses are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit on land within the City that was previously a legal nonconforming agricultural use but has not been used as such for six (6) months or more; and
WHEREAS, Livingston Municipal Code Section 5-6-2 (B) 2 requires that the City Council approve a Resolution of Intent to initiate an amendment to the zoning ordinance; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting of April 19, 2011 the City Council approved a Resolution of Intent to initiate said amendment to the zoning ordinance (Exhibit B); and
WHEREAS, Livingston Municipal Code Section 5-6-2 (A) states that City zoning regulations shall be consistent with the General Plan in accordance with State Government Code, Section 65860 and the Planning Commission determines General Plan Consistency pursuant to 5-6-2 (D); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, having reviewed the proposed amendment at a duly noticed public hearing on May 10, 2011 recommends amending LMC section 5-6-5(C) and has determined this amendment is consistent with Livingston General Plan Land Use Policy 3.1A 6: The Conditional Use Permit process with its four findings required for approval, plus two additional required findings as set forth in the amended code provision, shall be used for all Conditional Use Permits applied for under the amended section 5-6-5(C); and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Ordinance is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations) as there are no new impacts that were not addressed in the 1999 General Plan EIR AND 2025 General Plan Update EIR. As each new Agricultural use applies for its required Conditional Use Permit, it will be reviewed by staff for environmental impacts such as air and water quality, noise, and truck traffic among others.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission adopts Resolution 2011–, recommending that the City Council amend LMC 5-3, as provided for in attached Exhibit A, and finds that the amendment to LMC 5-3 is consistent with the 1999 General Plan and 2025 General Plan Update.
The foregoing resolution was introduced and moved for adoption on May 10, 2011, by Commissioner , and being duly seconded by Vice-Chair , was passed by the following vote:
Chair, LUIS ENRIQUE FLORES Secretary of the Planning Commission,
DONNA M. KENNEY
5-6-5: NONCONFORMING USES
A) INTENT: Within the districts established by this Section oramendments that may be adopted there exist lots, structures, and uses of land and structures which were lawful before this Section was passed or amended, but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted under the terms of this Section.
It is the intent of this Section to permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. Such uses are declared by this Section to be incompatible with permitted uses in the districts involved. It is further the intent of this Section that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district.
A nonconforming use of a structure, a nonconforming use of land, or a nonconforming use of a structure and land shall not be extended or enlarged after passage of this Section by the addition of other uses of a nature which would be prohibited generally in the district involved.
To avoid undue hardship, nothing in this Section shall be deemed to require a change in the plans, construction, or designated use of any building on which actual construction
was lawfully begun prior to the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Section and upon which actual building construction has been diligently carried on. Actual
construction is hereby defined to include the placing of construction materials in permanent position and fastened in a permanent manner; except that where demolition or removal of an existing building has been substantially begun preparatory to rebuilding, such demolition or removal shall be deemed to be actual construction, provided that work shall be diligently carried on until completion of the building involved.
B) NONCONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD; SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLINGS: In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted, notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this Section, a single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Section. Such lots must be in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership. This provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements for area or width, or both, that are generally applicable in the district, provided that yard dimensions and other requirements not involving the area or width, or both, of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which such lot is located. Variance of area, width, and yard requirements shall be obtained only through action of the Planning Commission.
In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted, lots that are twenty five feet (25′) or less exist with continuous frontage in single ownership of record at the time
of the passage or amendment of this Section, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements for lot width and area as established by this Section, the lands involved
shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of the ordinance, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold which does not meet lot width and area
requirements established by this Section for single-family homes, nor shall any division of the parcel be made which leaves remaining any lot with width or area below the requirements stated in this Section.
C) NONCONFORMING USES OF LAND: Where, at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Section, lawful use of land exists that is made no longer permissible under the terms of this Section as enacted or amended, such may be continued, so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions:
1 No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged orincreased, nor extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Section.
2. No such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any other portion of the lot or parcel occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Section.
3. If any such nonconforming use of land ceases for any reason for a period of more than six (6) months, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the regulations specified by this Section for the district in which such land is located.
(i) Nonconforming Agricultural Uses: Due to the nature of agricultural activities, use of agricultural land may cease for six (6) months or more in the normal course of farming. If the legal nonconforming use status of a property used for agriculture is lost due to
its inactivity for six (6) months, the property owner may apply for a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 6, Section 9 of this Code, seeking to continue the use of the property for agriculture as a legal nonconforming use.
(ii) Prior to granting a Conditional Use Permit to continue a legal nonconforming agricultural use within the City, the Planning Commission must make the findings required in Title 5 Chapter 6, Section 9(E)(3) of this Code. The Planning Commission must also
(a) The applicant has provided substantial evidence to establish that the subject property
described in the permit application was used for agricultural purposes, as a legal nonconforming use, within the two (2) years preceding the application date.
(b) The granting of a Conditional Use Permit to allow agricultural use of the land described in the permit application will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or iniurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity.
4. Failure to comply with all applicable parking, loading, and street improvement requirements for the use shall make that use nonconforming.
D) NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Section that could not be built under the terms of this Section by reason of restriction on area, lot coverage, height, yards, parking and loading, street improvements, or other characteristics of the structure or its location on the lot, such structure may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions-
1 No such structure may be enlarged or altered in anyway unless such enlargement or alteration brings the structure into conformity with the regulations for the district in which the structure is located.
2. Should such structure be destroyed by any means toan extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at time of destruction, the City shall allow the residential property owner to rebuild one time. If the property is destroyed again, the owner must receive written authorization from the City
Council if it is going to be rebuilt. (Ord. 557, 3-20-07)
3. Should such structure be moved for any reason forany distance, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which it is located after it is moved.
E) NONCONFORMING USES OF STRUCTURES OR OF STRUCTURES AND PREMISES IN COMBINATION: If a lawful use of a structure, or of a structure and premises in combination, exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Section that would not be allowed in the district under the terms of this Section, the lawful use may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions:
1 No existing structure devoted to a use not permittedby this Section in the district in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except in changing the use of the structure in which it is located.
2. A nonconforming use may be extended throughout any part of a building (whether or not such part was obviously arranged or designed for suchnonconforming use at the time of the amendment of this Section) provided a use permit is first secured for the entire nonconforming use. In no event shall such nonconforming use be extended to occupy any land outside such building.
3. If no structural alterations are made, any nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and premises, may be changed to any nonconforming use provided that the Planning Commission, by making findings in the specific case, shall find that the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming use. In permitting such change, the Planning Commission may require appropriate conditions and safeguards in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
4. Any structure, or structure and land in combination, inor on which a non-conforming use is superseded by a permitted use, shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which such structure is located, and the nonconforming use may not thereafter
5. When a nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and premises in combination, is discontinued or abandoned for six consecutive months or for eighteen months during any three year period, the structure, or structure and premises in combination, shall not thereafter be used except in conformance with the regulations of the district in which it is located.
6. Where nonconforming use status applies to a structure and premises in combination, removal or destruction of the structure shall eliminate the nonconforming status of the land.
7. Failure to comply with all applicable parking, loading, and street improvement requirements for the use shall make that use nonconforming.
F) REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE/COST LIMITATIONS: On any building devoted in whole or in part to any nonconforming use, work may be done in any period of twelve (12) consecutive months on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of nonbearing walls, fixtures, wiring or plumbing to an extent the cost of such repairs do not exceed twenty five percent of the appraised fair market value of the building, provided that the cubic content of the building as it existed at the time of passage or amendment of this Section shall not be increased.
G) EXCLUSIONS: Any health related repairs, such as removal of lead based paint, asbestos, or mold; repairs necessary for fire safety and other safety features; repairs recommended by the City Building Inspector as necessary to correct building code violations; and, repairs necessary to accommodate special needs circumstances for the elderly or handicapped, such as shower fixtures, ramps, security screen doors, additional exterior lighting, etc., shall be excluded from pertaining to the cost limitations of this Section. Such exclusions shall be at the discretion of the City.
If a nonconforming structure or portion of a structurecontaining a nonconforming use becomes physically unsafe or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance, and is declared by any duly authorized official to be unsafe or unlawful by reason of physical condition, it shall not thereafter be restored, repaired, or rebuilt except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located, unless the cost of the repairs required to be made within the time period specified by the duly authorized official will not exceed the cost limitation in the above subsection hereof and unless no structural alterations are required to be made to the building. (Ord. 259, 12-8-83)
H) USE PERMITS: A Use Permit shall be required for all non-conforming expansion projects in any Commercial and/or Residential District. Property owners of non-conforming structures applying for low interest housing rehabilitation loans, such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), shall be subject to the Use Permit process for discretionary review of their expansion projects. See Chapter 6, Section 5-6-9, Use Permits.
1) APPEAL HEARING: If the property owner is dissatisfied with the decision taken by any duly authorized official pursuant to the subsections above, he/she must file a written appeal within ten (10) days of the decision of the duly authorized official to the City Council. The City Council shall set a date for a public hearing and give notice to the duly authorized official of such appeal. The City Council shall render its decision within thirty (30) days of said public hearing.
J) JUDICIAL REVIEW: The time to appeal a decision of the City Council pursuant to this Section shall be governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as currently enacted. (Ord. 302, 6-17-86)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON
RESOLUTION OF THE INTENT TO AMEND, REPEAL, OR REPLACE A SECTION OF TITLE 5 OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON MUNICIPAL CODE AND DIRECTING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND
DETERMINE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the Planning Commission review and provide a recommendation regarding a possible amendment to Title 5, “Zoning Regulations,” of the Livingston Municipal Code (LMC) concerning farming within City limits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff to analyze the definition of “Agriculture” located in LMC section 5-2-3 (1), the proper zoning for agriculture, and LMC section 5-6-5 relating to legal nonconforming uses; and
WHEREAS, LMC section 5-6-2 (B) 2 requires that the City Council approve a Resolution of Intent to initiate an amendment to the zoning ordinance; and
WHEREAS, LMC section 5-6-2 (A) states that City zoning regulations shall be consistent with the General Plan in accordance with State Government Code, Section 65860 and the Planning Commission determines General Plan Consistency pursuant to 5-6-2 (D); and
WHEREAS, City Council direction to the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements because the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 (b) 5 of the 2011 CEQA Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts Resolution 2011-26, stating its intention to amend, repeal, or replace a section of Title 5 of the City of Livingston Municipal Code and directing the Planning Commission to determine General Pan Consistency and make a recommendation.
Passed and adopted this 19th day of April, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Espinoza and Council Members Aguilar, Land and Vierra
ABSTAIN: Council Member Samra
Rodrigo Espinoza, Mayor
of the City of Livingston
Page 1 of 2
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Livingston this 19’x’ day of April 2011.
Antonio Silva, City Gl6rk
of the City of Livingston
Page 2 of 2