CC - Item III.E - Amending Section 17.124 Which Will Amend The Appeal Process For Permit ApplicationsORDINANCE NO. 814
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
APPROVING ORDINANCE NO. 814, AMENDING SECTION 17.124.070 OF THE
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE REVISING APPEAL PROCEDURES OF PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISIONS ON VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
ENTITLEMENTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1 : Rosemead Municipal Code section 17.124.070 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
17.124.070 Appeal - Council action
The granting, either with or without conditions, or the denial of such application for variance
or conditional use permit, by the Planning Commission, shall be final unless within ten days
after the decision by the Planning Commission, the applicant, anv member of the City Council
or any other person aggrieved by such decision, shall appeal therefrom in writing to the City
Council by filing such appeal with the City Clerk, stating the grounds for such appeal and
wherein the Planning Commission failed to conform to the requirements of this title. Except
in the case of an appeal filed by a nieniber of the City Council, the appeal shall be
accompanied by an appeal fee in the amount set by City Council resolution.
At its next regular meeting after the filing of such appeal, or in the case of application for a
zone change, after the receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City
Council shall set a date for a hearing thereon. The manner of setting the hearing, giving of
notice and conducting the hearing shall be the same as hereinabove prescribed for hearing by
the Planning Commission, except that notice shall be mailed to the members of the City
Council instead of the Planning Commission.
The decision of the Planning Commission with respect to a variance or conditional use 'permit
may be affirmed, modified, reversed or transmitted back to the Planning Commission for
further study. The City Council may approve or disapprove the recommendation of the
„. s
SEP 2 6 2000
ITEM No. 1�F
Planning Commission with respect to an application for zone change, but shall not make any
change therein until the proposed change has been referred to the Planning Commission for a
report and a copy of its report has been filed with the City Council. (Prior code § 9186.6)
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED THIS 26 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2000.
Mayor
ATTEST
CITY CLERK
r
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
ORDINANCE NO. 814 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING SECTION 17.124 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDING THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS — ADOPT
Frank Weiser, 3460 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, attorney for the Rosemead
Hotel/Motel Association voiced his association's objections for the record. 'Mr. Weiser referring
to Ordinance No. 813, Section 15.040.100 — Preventing Register Inspection Prohibited stated
that language was added to read "...reasonable prior notice or for reasonable cause..." Mr.
Weiser stated that the language should be "...and for reasonable cause..." as one has to have
reasonable cause to come onto a property.
Councilman Taylor objected as reasonable cause can be an immediate situation, such as a
Deputy following a car into the parking lot. Mr. Taylor stated that "and" is both, whereas "or" is
one or the other.
Mr. Weiser stated that "reasonable cause" gives the right to expect a judge to determine
whether a warrant should be issued or not. Mr. Weiser agreed with Councilman Taylor as his
example stated goes beyond "reasonable cause" and is more of an emergency type situation. Mr.
Weiser continued that prior notice should be given and for a reasonable cause. This would allow
the owners to have due process notice ahead of time to give them ample time to decide what their
options are. ,
Councilman Taylor stated that he favors leaving the Ordinance as is
Mr. Weiser stated that there has to be reasonable cause to inspect the register, whether
there is prior notice or not.
Councilman Taylor stated that Mr. Weiser's clients have the option to call him if they
feel they have not been given a reasonable cause for inspection.
Councilman Bruesch stated that if the Ordinance states "and ", and if an owner is
violating the room rental Ordinance and prior notice is required, what would prevent the owner
from forging the names on the log in the meantime?
Mr. Weiser stated that there is a right to judicial review to determine if there is reasonable
cause or not. Mr. Weiser stated that reasonable cause is always required.
Councilman Bruesch stated that not once in his 17 years on the Council has a hoteVmotel
owner come to City Hall to complain that their rights are being usurped.
Mr. Weiser concluded that "reasonable cause" is an absolute constitutional minimum and
by putting in the word "or" does not meet that requirement.
Wilson Wang, 3152 Redhill Avenue, Costa Mesa, representing the Hotel/Motel Owner's
Association of Southern California, requested that the Council postpone their decision today.
Mr. Wang stated that some of the items in the Ordianance are repeating the issues'that were in
litigation and that the Courts have ruled that some of the regulations are unconstitutional to the
businesses.
Frank Tripepi, City Manager, stated that the Council has had to listen to many questions
and discussions for the past few meetings as to why the motels/hotels need to be regulated, why
there are requirements, why is the C.U.P. required, etc. Mr. Tripepi read a letter from a_woman
who stayed at a motel owned by someone that spoke at the last Council meeting and has been in
business for at least 18 years. The gist of the letter outlined the myriad of problems the woman
and her children encountered during their stay of a few hours at the motel. Some of the problems
encountered were torn curtains of which she was given paper clips to'close them with; no central
lighting and had to replace the bulb herself, but it didn't work anyway as the fixture was broken;
CCMIN- 9 -26 -00
Page a4
u
.,
no toilet paper nor holder, an inadequate supply of towels for four people and was refused extra
towels, feces on the wall, broken mattress springs, etc. They left in fear after spotting a peeping
tom looking in the window. Upon requesting their money back the next day, the owner refused.
Mr. Tripepi concluded that this may answer some of the questions as to why the Council feels it
is necessary to regulate these businesses.
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN
BRUESCH that the Council adopt Ordinance No. 813. Vote resulted:
Yes:
Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
,,P�The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
E. ORDINANCE NO. 814 — AMENDING SECTION 17.124 OF TH
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH WILL AMEND THE APPEAL
PROCESS FOR VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATIONS — ADOPT
The following Ordinance was present to the Council for adoption:
ORDINANCE NO. 814
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
APPROVING ORDINANCE NO. 814, AMENDING SECTION 17.124.070 OF
THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE REVISING APPEAL PROCEDURES
OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ON VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ENTITLEMENTS
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN
VASQUEZ that the Council adopt Ordinance No. 814. Vote resulted:
Yes:
Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial
No:
Taylor
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC -C was removed for discussion purposes)
CC -A REQUEST FOR VISIBILITY OF NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC AT 2728-
2734 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE
CC -B RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT — STREET TREE MAINTENANCE
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM
RAPERIAL that the Council approve the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar. Vote
resulted:
Yes:
Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial
No:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CCMrN:9.26-00
Page #5
II