PC - Item No. 4C - Revocation of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05-1014 and Planning Commission Resolution 5-39ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2011
SUBJECT: REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 05 -1014 AND
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05 -39)
Summary
On September 19, 2005, the Rosemead Planning Commission approved Resolution 05-
39 (Exhibit A) that approved Conditional Use Permit 05 -1014 for the construction of a
2,000± square -foot, multiple tenant, retail building located at 3328 Del Mar Avenue, in
the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. The building was approved in accordance with
Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) regulations for mini -mall developments. The building
construction was completed on April 19, 2011.
Dr. Wally Hui purchased the property on June 24, 2011 for the purpose of using the
entire commercial development as a dental office. Furthermore, the City issued building
permits on June 28, 2011 to consolidate the mini -mall development into a single
occupant, dental office. On September 13, 2011, Dr. Hui submitted a letter (Exhibit B)
requesting that Conditional Use Permit 05 -1014 be revoked to ensure that the permit
becomes null and void and will have no effect on his property, since the RMC does not
require conditional use permits for medical office buildings. Staff concurs with Dr. Hui
and recommends revocation of the existing Conditional Use Permit.
Environmental Determination
Section 15321 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts
projects that consist of actions by regulatory agencies to enforce or revoke a lease,
permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use issued, adopted or prescribed by
the regulatory agency or enforcement of law, general rule, standard, or objective
administered or adopted by the regulatory agency. Accordingly, the revocation of
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05 -1014 and,Planning Commission Resolution 05 -39) is
Planning Commission Staff Report
Revocation of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05 -1014 and PC Resolution 05 -39)
November 7, 2011
Page 2 of 3
classified as a Class 21 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15321 of CEQA
guidelines.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 11 -22 (Exhibit
C) APPROVING the revocation of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05 -1014 and Planning
Commission Resolution 05 -39). I I
Administrative Analysis
( I i
The Rosemead Planning Commission approved CUP 05 -1014 on September 19, 2005
for the construction of a 2,000± square -foot, single -story, retail building consisting of two
units. The building was developed in accords i ce with RMC regulations for mini -mall
projects. The RMC defines mini -mall projects as any development with ,a site area of
less than forty -five thousand (45,000) square feet, which is to be improved with multiple
uses or retail sales, retail services or restaurants, or a combination of retail and
industrial uses and which are developed into a commercial complex with surface
parking on the same property. Commercial projects devoted to office use exclusively
shall be exempt from this definition. Therefore, a single- occupant medical office
building does not require conditional use permit in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone.
On September 26, 2010, Dr. Wally Hui formallyf submitted an application requesting the
City to revoke CUP 05 -1014 and Planning Commission Resolution 05 -39;to ensure that
the permit becomes null and void and will have no effect on his property. Absent an
affirmative action by the Planning Commission Ito revoke CUP 05- 1014JDr. Hui would
have to "abandon" the permit by failing to utilize it for a period of 6 months. During that
time, he would be prohibited from using the property other than in compliance with CUP
05 -1014. This would hamper Dr. Hui's ability to begin operations of his dental practice
on the site, and so staff and Dr. Hui agree that revocation of the existing permit is the
best way to allow Dr. Hui to immediately operate the property with its long term intended
use.
Municipal Code Requirements
RMC Section 17.112.060 provides procedu ies for any expiration, 'revocation, or
modification of a conditional use permit. Fora `y expiration, revocation, or modification
of a conditional use permit a notice shall be sent in writing to the original grantee of the
permit that the Commission intends to revoke or modify the conditional use permit, and
stating the reasons therefore, and informing the grantee of the time and place of the
public hearing on such revocation. The reasons for revoking CUP 05 -1014 and
Planning Commission Resolution 05 -39, are as follows:
The property owner purchased the property in June 2011 for the purpose of
using the entire building as a dental office.
f f
i
A
Planning Commission Staff Report
Revocation of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05 -1014 and PC Resolution 05 -39)
November 7, 2011
Page 3 of 3
According to RMC Section 17.040.020, commercial projects devoted to office use
exclusively shall be exempt from the mini -mall definition.
A medical office is a permitted use in the C -3 zone, as set forth in RMC Section
17.44.020, and the single occupant use of the building located at 3328 Del Mar
Avenue as a dental office does not require a conditional use permit.
The Rosemead Building and Safety Division issued building permits on June 28,
2011 to consolidate the mini -mall development into a single occupant building.
The construction related to the interior tenant improvement is complete.
The RMC does not allow the abandoning of a CUP without a lapse of 6 months,
and the applicant desires to immediately begin operations consistent with the C -3
zone but inconsistent with CUP 05 -1014.
Public Notice Process
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which
includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to sixty -six (66) property owners, publication
in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public
locations and on the subject site. In addition, in accordance with revocation procedures
set forth in RMC Section 17.112.060.C, notice was sent in writing to the original grantee
of the Conditional Use Permit on October 25, 2011, which stated the Commission's
intentions to revoke the conditional use permit, along with the reasons for revocation,
and information on the time and place of the public hearing for the revocation.
Prep�are -by:
( Submitted /by.-
Sheri Bermejo
Michelle Ramirez.
City Planner
Acting Community Development Director
EXHIBITS:
A. Resolution 05 -39
B. Letter submitted by the applicant, dated September 13, 2011
C. Resolution 11 -22
EXHIBIT "A"
I
I
PC RESOLUTION 05 -39
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD APPROVING COA'DFCIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -1014, FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,000.* SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR MINI -MALLS AND
OTHER SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS, LOCATED AT 3324 -3326 DEL MAR
AVENUE IN THE C -3; MEDIUM CO i RCIAL ZONE. (APN: 5287 -017-
011,012).
nitted a conditional use permit application
ing in accordance with the guidelines for
3324 -3326 Del Mar Avenue in the C -3;
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2005, Tin Hain Ko s
for the construction of a 2,000.* square foot retail br
mini -malls and other similar developments, located
Medium Commercial zone; and
and
WHEREAS, 3324 -3326 Del Mar Avenue is
I
ted in the C -3; Medium Commercial zone;
WHEREAS, Section 17.112.030(24) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) allows
"mini- malls" in the C -1, C -3, CBD, M -1, and P -D zones, upon the granting of a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP). Section 17.112.010 sets criteria required for granting such a permit These criteria
require that the proposed use is deemed: I I
The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use so applied
for will not, trader the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to I
the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons
residing or working the neighborhood thereof, not be detrimental or injurious
to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general
welfare of the city. I -
WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section
17.112.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve,
conditionally approve or deny conditional use permits; and
I
WHEREAS, Sections 17.112.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code specifies the criteria by
which a conditional use permit may be granted; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2005, fifty -two (52) notices were sentto property owners within a
300 -foot radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in eight (8) public locations,
specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing for
Conditional Use Permit 05 -1014; and
I
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2005, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional Use Pemdt 05-
1014; and
I I
WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony
presented to them in order to make the following detemtutation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Rosemead as follows:
SECTION 1 . The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that Conditional Use
Permit 05 -1014 is Categorically Exempt from environmental review as a Class 32 Exemption
pursuant to Section 15332(6) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
I
SECTION 2 . The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts
do exist to justify approving Conditional Use Permit OS -1014 according to the Criteria of Chapter
17.112.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows:
A. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use so applied for will
. A. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use so applied for will
not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working the neighborhood thereof, .
FINDING: All applicants developing commercial parcels with less than 45,000 square feet
used for retail purposes, must obtain a Conditional Use Permit in order for the development of a
mini -mall. This site will be operated in accordance with applicable City regulations, and is in
conformity with the development in and around the project site. .
B. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use so applied for will
not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental or injurious to the property and
improvements in the neighborhood.
FINDING: The proposed use is located within an established commercial area of the City,
and is designated Commercial in the General Plan. The proposed use is in conformity with the
General Plan, in that the policies of the General Plan encourage complementary uses that will
contribute to the economic well being of the commercial areas of the City. An extensive review of
the proposed project has been conducted relative to its effects to surrounding properties and the
welfare of persons residing or working the neighborhood.
C. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use so applied for will
not, under the circumstances of the particular case will not be detrimental or injurious to the general
welfare of the city.
FINDING: The proposed use will not endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the
surrounding properties as conditions of approval have been incorporated upon the issuance of this
permit requiring: limitations to the type of land uses to the mini -mall, the installation of new
landscaping and irrigation, periodic inspections, and the overall maintenance of the site.
SECTION 3 . The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES Conditional Use Permit
05 -1014, to allow the the construction of a 2,000f square foot retail building in accordance wit the
guidelines for mini -malls and other similar developments, on property located at 3324 -3326 Del Mar
Avenue, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION4 This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on
August 15, 2005, by the following vote:
YES: . BREEN, KELTY, LOI, LOPEZ
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
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 19 day of September 2005.
- Due Loi, Chairman
I
I
I
I .
I
I I
1
CERTIFICATION
• I
i
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 the 19`" day of September, 2005, by the
following vote:
1
YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, L61, LOPEZ
NO:
. ABSENT: .
ABSTAIN:
I
Lily Trinh Sept 13, 2011
Assistant Planner
City of Rosemead, 91770
Re: 3322 -3328 Del Mar Ave. Sign Plan
Lily
I am requesting that the revoke of Conditional Use Permit 05 -1014 for the above
property as a single use for dental office.
Yours truly,
Dr. Wally Hui
j
EXHIBIT "C
PC RESOLUTION 11 -22
I
I
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE REVOCATION OF CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP
05 -1014 AND PLANNING COMMISSION IRESOLUTION 05 -39), WHICH
ALLOWED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MINI -MALL DEVELOPMENT
AT 3328 DEL MAR AVENUE.
i
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2005, the Rosemead Planning ;Commission
conducted a public hearing and considered Conditional Use Permit 05 -1014 to allow the
development of a 2,000 square foot, retail, mini -mall project at 3328 Del Mar Avenue in
the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone, and
I '
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution 05 -39, as a result of the project approval action taken by the Planning
Commission on August 15, 2005, and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2011, the construction of the mini -mall project was
completed, and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2011, Dr. Wally Hui purchased the property located at
3328 Del Mar Avenue and obtained building permit approvals on June 28, 2011 to
consolidate the mini -mall development into a single occupant dental office building, and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2011, the1property owner formally submitted an
application notifying the City of his desire to abandon the Conditional Use Permit (CUP
05 -1014 and Planning Commission Resolution 05 -39), as he no longer desires to have
the building occupied with multiple retail uses, and
WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.040.020 states that
commercial projects devoted to office use exclusively shall be exempt from the mini -
mall definition, and
WHEREAS, RMC Section 17.44.020 lists a medical office as a permitted use in
the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone, and
WHEREAS, RMC Section 17.112.060 does not allow the holder of'a conditional
use permit to voluntarily abandon the permit but gather requires either the passage of 6
months of the use being abandoned or else the affirmative revocation of the permit by
the Planning Commission; and
i
WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Governme i nt Code and
RMC Section 17.112.060 authorize the Planning Commission to revoke Conditional Use
Permits; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2011, sixty -six (66) notices were sent to property
owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, in addition notices were
posted in six (6) public locations and on -site, specifying the availability of the
application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing for the revocation of
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05 -1014 and Planning Commission Resolution 05 -39);
and on October 28, 2011, the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune;
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with revocation procedures set forth in RMC Section
17.112.060.C, notice was sent in writing to the original grantee of the Conditional Use
Permit on October 25, 2011, which stated the Commission's intentions to revoke the
permit, along with the grounds for revocation, and information on the time and place of
the public hearing for the revocation, and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to the
revocation of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05 -1014 and Planning Commission
Resolution 05 -39); 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 DETERMINES that the
revocation of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05 -1014 and Planning Commission
Resolution 05 -39) is Categorically Exempt from environmental review as a Class 21
Exemption pursuant to Section 15321 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
SECTION 2 . The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
that facts do exist to justify revoking Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05 -1014 and
Resolution 05 -39) according to the provisions in Chapter 17.112.060 of the Rosemead
Municipal Code as follows:
FINDING: Dr. Wally Hui purchased the property on June 24, 2011 for the
purpose of using the entire mini -mall building as a dental office. According to RMC
Section 17.040.020, commercial projects devoted to office use exclusively shall be
exempt from the mini -mall definition. Furthermore, a medical office is a permitted use in
the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone according to RMC Section 17.44.020. Therefore,
the single occupant use of the building located at 3328 Del Mar Avenue as a dental
office does not require a conditional use permit. The Rosemead Building and Safety
Division issued building permits on June 28, 2011 to consolidate the mini -mall
development into a single occupant dental office building. The construction related to
the interior tenant improvement of the building is complete.
SECTION 3 . The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES the 'revocation of
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05 -1014 and Planning Commission Resolution. 05 -39) in
its entirety.
I
SECTION 4 . This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on November 7, 2011, by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SECTION 5 . The Secretary shall certify ,to the adoption of this resolution and
shall transmit copies of same to the applicant andithe Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7 th day of November, 2011.
i
i
Nancy Eng, Chair
CERTIFICA
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 the 7 th day of
November, 2011, by the following vote: I
YES: i
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Michelle Ramirez, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I
Gregory M. Murphy, Planning Commission Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 1