Loading...
CC - Item 3A - Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 11-14 - 8772 Valley BoulevardROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER 10 DATE: JUNE 12, 2012 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 -14 8772 VALLEY BOULEVARD SUMMARY On January 17, 2012, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 (CUP 11 -14), a request for a new On -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with a bona fide public eating place, known as Hunan Restaurant. The restaurant is located at 8772 Valley Boulevard, in the C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. The Planning Commission denied CUP 11 -14 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Planning Commission's staff report. The Planning Commission staff report, meeting minutes, and resolution are included in this report as Attachments "A ", "B ", and "C ", respectively. On January 19, 2012, the City Clerk's office received an appeal letter (Attachment "D ") from the applicant, Lan Tan, requesting to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing for the appeal of CUP 11 -14 on February 14, 2012. The City Council staff report and meeting minutes are included in this report as Attachments "E" and "F." During the public hearing Mr. Tan asked the City Council to postpone the public hearing so that he could continue to work with staff to address all the issues raised during the Planning Commission hearing. The Council unanimously approved his request, and the meeting was continued to March 27, 2012. On March 8, 2012, staff received a request from Mr. Tan (Attachment "G "), requesting an additional 60 days to address the City's concerns. The letter states that he has engaged the services of Mr. Michael Lewis, of Lewis & Company, Inc., to assist in the revisions of his plans. On March 27, 2012, the City Council unanimously approved his request and extended the public hearing to the June 12 City Council meeting. The City Council staff report and meeting minutes are included in this report as Attachments "H" and 'T" Since March 27, 2012, staff has met with the applicant and his consultant several times to discuss possible floor plan revisions. On May 24, 2012, the applicant submitted a letter to the City (Attachment "J "), requesting an additional extension of 30 days to work with his consultant and engineer to make necessary revisions to the floor plan. ITEM NO. 3N APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: - - City Council Report June 12, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council CONTINUE the public hearing for the appeal of CUP 11 -14 to July 24, 2012. ANALYSIS As the City Council may recall, the Planning Commission denied CUP 11 -14 on the basis that the proposed floor plan was a misrepresentation of the current restaurant layout. Although the submitted floor plan resembled dining area throughout the establishment, the actual set -up of the rear of the establishment resembled a hostess bar. A hostess bar is not permitted use in the City. Over the last several months, staff from the Community Development Department and Public Safety Department staff have completed site inspections of the Hunan Restaurant with Mr. Tan and his consultant. During these meetings, staff provided Mr. Tan with recommendations for interior floor plan modifications to make the rear portion of the building consistent with a restaurant establishment. During the week of May 21, 2012, the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control contacted the Planning Division regarding the status of the appeal. They have conducted a recent site inspection and agree that the restaurant floor plan should be modified to be consistent with a full service restaurant. In Mr. Tan's most recent letter to the City (Attachment J"), he indicates that he has completed a list of changes that need to be incorporated into formal architectural drawings. Once the plans are completed, they will be submitted to the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Section 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects that consist of inspections to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, and safety of a project from environmental review. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 is classified as a Class 9 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15309 of CEQA guidelines and therefore exempt from further environmental analysis. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. City Council Report June 12, 2012 Page 3 of 3 Pre are b j Prepared by: Lily Trinh Michelle Ramirez Assistant Planner Community Development Director Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 17, 2012 Attachment B: Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 17, 2012 Attachment C: Planning Commission Resolution 12 -01 Attachment D: Appeal Letter, dated January 19, 2012 Attachment E: City Council Staff Report, dated February 14, 2012 Attachment F: City Council Meeting Minutes, dated February 14, 2012 Attachment G Letter requesting a 60 -day extension from Lan (Tony) Tan, dated March 8, 2012 Attachment H: City Council Staff Report, dated March 27, 2012 Attachment I: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes, dated March 27, 2012 Attachment J: Letter requesting a 30 -day extension from Lan (Tony) Tan, dated May 17, 2012 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: JANUARY 17, 2012 SUBJECT: DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 -14 8772 VALLEY BOULEVARD Summary Lan Tan has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application requesting approval for a new On -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with a bona fide public eating place located at 8772 Valley Boulevard, in the C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. Environmental Determination Section 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects that consist of inspections to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, and safety of a project from environmental review. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 is classified as a Class 9 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15309 of CEQA guidelines and therefore exempt from further environmental analysis. Staff Recommendation Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission DENY Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 and ADOPT Resolution No. 12 -01 with findings (Exhibit A). Property History & Description The subject site is located on Valley Boulevard just west of Muscatel Avenue. The total size of the lot is approximately 9,700 square feet. The lot is developed with a 5,500 square foot restaurant on the first story, and an approximate 630 square foot investment service office on the second story. According to Planning Division records, several Conditional Use Permits for On -Sale alcohol licenses were approved at the subject site. The following table illustrates the history of alcoholic license requests and approvals for the subject restaurant. ATTACHMENT A PC Meeting January 17, 2012 CUP 11 -14 (Denial) Page 2 of 21 Case File Business_ Year:` Notes Name Approved, On January 8, 1975, the Planning Commission granted a new On -Sale alcohol license in conjunction with a restaurant to the Rose Room. On November 18, 1987, the City initiated CUP 72 Rose Room 1975 revocation proceedings for Conditional Use Permit 72 based on non- compliance with the Municipal Cade requirements. On December 14, 1987, the Planning Commission approved a modification to Conditional Use Permit 72 allowing the continuance of alcoholic sales. CUP 88- 424 Rose Room 1988 Transfer of Ownership CUP e9- Rose Room 1989 Transfer of Ownership 466 CUP 90- 497 Rose Room 1990 Transfer of Ownership On November 2, 1992, the Planning Commission granted the transfer of an existing On -Sale General Alcohol license (Type 47) to the Da Du Corporation/Rose Room Restaurant In March of 1993, the City Council granted Dance and Entertainment licenses to the establishment. During the period of this restaurants operation, from January 1999 to December 2001, the Sheriffs' Department received numerous calls relating to serious and violent incidents occurring at this site. These CUP 92- Rose Room 1992 incidents included various gang related activities ranging from 568 gang fights to multiple homicides on the property. In December of 2001, the Rose Room was issued a Notice of Accusation regarding the revocation of the'Dance Permit and Business License due to the many violations that occurred at this site. The Rose Room entered into two Last Chance Agreements with the City to keep the restaurant open. Due to the strict conditions that were set forth in the Final Last Chance Agreement, the Owner of the Rose Room decided to close the establishment in 2005. On October 3, 2005, the Planning Commission granted a new On -Sale beer and wine license (Type 41) to Pho King Restaurant. Since the approval of Conditional Use Permit 05- CUP 05- Pho King/King's 1021, the restaurant has changed its business name several 10211 Garden/Hunan 2005 times from Pho King Restaurant to King's Garden to its current Restaurant business name of Hunan Seafood Restaurant. According to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), the alcohol license was cancelled on November 10, 2008. PC Meeting January 17, 2012 CUP 11 -14 (Denial) Page 3 of 21 North Elevation Site & Surroundina Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the zoning map it is designated C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial South: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C -31) (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial East: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C -31) (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial West: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-31) (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial PC Meeting January 17, 2012 CUP 11 -14 (Denial) _ Page 4 of 21 Administrative Analysis 64 Restaurant Operations The applicant is currently operating a full service restaurant at the site. The daily hours of operation are from 10:00 a.m, to 1:00 a.m., seven days per week. The restaurant currently employs eight (8) employees on the largest shift. The applicant is requesting approval for a new On -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunctipn with a bona fide public eating place. The applicant has indicated that the restaurant was previously owned by him and his former wife, however, she has transferred the entire business to him. In addition, as noted above, ABC cancelled the previous on -sale license in 2008. . Floor Plan The floor plan (attached as Exhibit "C ") submitted by the applicant indicates that the restaurant dining area provides seating for twenty -two (22) patrons. The applicant has indicated that the existing floor plan..will remain. As illustrated on the floor plan, the kitchen is situated in the center of building and the two dining areas are separated by a hallway. Each dining area has a service counter. A site inspection completed by the Planning Division on November 16, 2011, revealed that the floor plan submitted is a misrepresentation of the current restaurant layout. According to Staff's inspection, the front. dining area is well lit and consistent with a family style restaurant atmosphere; and the rear dining area resembles a hostess bar setting with dim lighting. The rear dining area is furnished with private, enclosed lounge areas that do not provide table. dining. Each lounge area also provides a private television screen. The table seating shown on the applicant's floor plan in this area does not exist. Staff found a dance floor, disco ball, karaoke machinery, and a speaker system in this area instead. This back room also provides access to a dressing room and two storage rooms. Pictures that were taken during Staffs' inspection have been included in this Staff report as Exhibit "D." A hostess bar is not a permitted use in the City. r_ According to California Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control, a bona fide public eating place," means as a place which is regularly and in a bona fide manner used and kept open for the serving of meals to guest for compensation and which has suitable kitchen facilities connected therewith, containing conveniences for cooking an assortment of foods which may be required for ordinary meals, the kitchen of which must be kept in a sanitary condition with the proper amount of refrigeration for keeping of food on said premises and must comply with all regulations of the local department of health (Section 23038). Therefore, the4ctual use of the restaurant, as proposed on the floor plan submitted by the applicant, clearly does not meet the State's definition of a bona fide public eating place. s- PC Meeting January 17, 2012 - CUP 11 -14 (Denial) - - Page 5 of 21 X 41 Staff has received a worksheet from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), which indicates that the subject restaurant is currently located in a census tract that has an over - concentration of alcohol permits. ABC defines "over - concentration" as greater than one license per 1,147 residents living within the subject census tract. The population of the census tract (No. 4813) in which the subject property is located is 2,963 residents. The number of allowable on -sale ABC licenses for this census tract is three (3). Currently, there are six (6) authorized on-sale licenses for this census tract. ABC has also ,determined that this location is located in a high crime district. . The City's Chief of Police has reviewed this request and has indicated that the applicant's proposal cannot be supported. In addition to the ABC determination that must be taken into account, on January 10, 2012 the Chief of Police conducted a site inspection which confirmed Staffs suspicion that the floor plan resembles a hostess bar. This confirmation was made based on the Chiefs experience with the Asian Gang Taskforce. In addition, according to the Chief of Police, the subject site has historically been the source of law enforcement problems relating to Asian gangs, drugs, and prostitution. He has also indicated that the rear portion of the restaurant has historically been used as a "hostess bar" under the disguise of a legitimate family restaurant. The Chief of Police further indicated that since 2005, when the applicant and his former wife assumed control of the restauragt, the rear portion of the restaurant has been used as an Asian gang "hangout." Specifically, the LA County Sheriff Department's undercover operations at the.subject site revealed known underage gang members who fled the scene. Importantly, given the request to legally serve alcohol on the site via an ABC permit, the Chief indicated that after the alcohol license was cancelled with ABC in 2008, the applicant continued to sell alcohol in the restaurant and had alcohol hidden behind the service counter. The Chief of Police, Public Safety Department, and Planning Division Staff have been working with the applicant to resolve issues of concern since the application was originally submitted. The Chief of Police and Planning Staff have suggested that the applicant revise the actual floor plan and furnishings of the rear portion of the building to be consistent with a "family restaurant" environment. The applicant has indicated that he is not willing to make these changes. The applicant told the Chief of Police that he would like to re -open the rear portion of the building as a "sports bar, karaoke and dance area." The Commission should note that the applicant has submitted Entertainment and Dance License applications to the City's Administration Department for karaoke and dance. These applications are currently pending, and require City Council approval. The applicant has informed the Chief of Police that his goal is to PC Meeting January 17, 2012 CUP 11 -14 (Denial) Page 6 of 21 operate a club similar to a restaurantlbar located in Temple City, which is essentially known as a hostess bar by the Public Safety Department. The Chief of Police is concerned that such business operation would attract clientele which will once again result in problems for the City. Schools, Churches, and Residential Properties within the Vicinity The subject site is 600 feet away from Muscatel Middle School and Rosemead Church of Christ. Residential properties are situated less than 100 feet away from the subject site. Public Comments On January 10, 2012, Staff received an email (attached as Exhibit "E) in regards to the business operations located at the subject restaurant. The email states that the business is operating as an illegal hostess bar where drinks are served and girls are paid to sit with customers. This exhibit would lend credence to a conclusion that the applicant is currently operating in violation of the City's Municipal Code, State law, and ABC regulations. Municipal Code Requirements Section 17.112.030 (9) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) allows on -sale alcohol licenses in the C -1, C -3, CBD and M zones upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the Planning Commission. Conditional Use Permits may be granted when it can be shown that all of the following criteria from RMC Section 17.112.010 can be met: A. The granting of such a Conditional Use Permit will be in harmony with the elements or objectives of the General Plan. The site is designated in the General Plan for Commercial and on the zoning map it is designated C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay). The proposed use is in conformity with the General Plan in that C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zoning is a corresponding zone district with the Commercial General Plan land use category. B. The establishment, maintenance or conduct of the use for which the Conditional Use Permit is sought will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood thereof. According to the Chief of Police, the subject site has historically been the source of law enforcement problems relating to Asian gangs, drugs, and prostitution. On January 10, 2012, the Chief of Police conducted a site inspection which revealed that the floor plan resembles a hostess bar based on his experience with the Asian Gang Taskforce. The applicant told the Chief of Police that he would like to re -open the rear portion of the building as a "sports PC Meeting January 17, 2012 CUP 11 -14 (Denial) Page 7 of 21 bar, karaoke and dance area," similar to one located in Temple City, which is essentially known as a hostess bar by the Public Safety Department. The Chief of Police is concerned that such business operation would attract clientele which will once again result in problems for the City. In addition, according to ABC, a "bona fide public eating place," means a place which is regularly and in a bona fide manner used and kept open for the serving of meals to guest for compensation and which has suitable kitchen facilities connected therewith, containing conveniences for cooking an assortment of foods which may be required for ordinary meals, the kitchen of which must be kept in a sanitary condition with the proper amount of refrigeration for keeping of food on said premises and must comply with all regulations of the local department of health (Section 23038). The actual use and layout of the restaurant, as opposed to the floor plan submitted to the City, clearly illustrates that the applicant does not meet the State's definition of a bona fide public eating place. Furthermore, the floor plan submitted as Exhibit "C" clearly misrepresents the current restaurant layout and is believe to have been an attempt to deceive the City. The proposed operation is not suitable at the proposed location due to its proximity to sensitive land uses and the high potential that the actual use would violate City codes and State law. Further, the subject site is 600 feet away from Muscatel Middle School and Rosemead Church of Christ. Residential properties are situated less than 100 feet away from the subject site. Therefore, the approval of the On -Sale beer and wine (Type 41) license will be detrimental to the health, safety, piece, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood. C. The granting of such a conditional use permit will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare. A site inspection completed by the Planning Division on November 16, 2011, revealed that the floor plan submitted is a misrepresentation of the current restaurant layout. According to Staff's inspection, the front dining area is well lit and consistent with a family style restaurant atmosphere, but the rear dining area resembles a hostess bar setting with dim lighting. The rear dining area is furnished with private, enclosed lounge areas that do not provide table dining. Each lounge area also provides a private television screen. The table seating shown on the applicant's floor plan in this area does not exist. Staff found a dance floor, disco ball, karaoke machinery, and a speaker system in this area instead. In addition, on January 10, 2012, the Chief of Police conducted a site inspection which revealed that the floor plan resembles a hostess bar, based on his experience with the Asian Gang Taskforce. The Chief of Police has PC Meeting January 17, 2012 CUP 11 -14 (Deniaq Page B of 21 indicated that since 2005, when the applicant and his ex -wife assumed control of the restaurant, the rear portion of the restaurant once again became an Asian gang hangout. The LA County Sheriff Department's undercover operations at the subject site revealed underage gang members who fled the scene. He also indicated that after the alcohol license was cancelled with ABC, the applicant continued to sell alcohol in the restaurant and had alcohol hidden behind the service counter. Therefore, the approval of the On -Sale beer and wine (Type 41) license will be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare. Section 17.112.100 of the Rosemead Municipal Code States that in addition to the general findings required for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission, or on appeal to the City Council, shall find that each of the following facts or conditions exist, prior to the issuance of a new Conditional Use Permit authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages: D. The proposed use will not present problems including, but not limited to, loitering, obstruction of pedestrian traffic, increased vehicular traffic, increased parking demand, crime, interference with children on their way to school, interference with shoppers using streets, defacement and damage to property; and The applicant has indicated to the Chief of Police that he would like to re -open the rear portion of the building as a "sports bar, karaoke and dance area," similar to one located in Temple City, which is essentially known as a hostess bar by the Public Safety Department. Since the subject site is located 600 feet away from Muscatel Middle School and Rosemead Church of Christ and less than 100 feet away from several residential properties, the approval of the On- Sale beer and wine (Type 41) license will present problems including, but not limited to, loitering, obstruction of pedestrian traffic, increased vehicular traffic, increased parking demand, crime, interference with children on their way to school, interference with shoppers using streets, defacement and damage to property. E. The proposed use will not lessen the suitability of any nearby commercially zoned properties for commercial use; and A site inspection completed by the Planning Division on November 16, 2011, revealed that the floor plan submitted is a misrepresentation of the current restaurant layout. According to Staff's inspection, the front dining area is well lit and consistent with a family style restaurant atmosphere, and that the rear dining area resembles a hostess bar setting with dim lighting. A hostess bar is not a permitted use in the City. The rear dining area is furnished with private, PC Meeting January 17, 2012 CUP 11 -14 (Denial) Page 9 of 21 enclosed lounge areas that do not provide table dining. Each lounge area also provides a private television screen. The table seating shown on the applicant's floor plan in this area does not exist. Staff found a dance floor, disco ball, karaoke machinery, and a speaker system in this area instead. In addition, according to ABC, a bona fide public eating place," means as a place which is regularly and in a bona fide manner used and kept open for the serving of meals to guest for compensation and which has suitable kitchen facilities connected therewith, containing conveniences for cooking an assortment of foods which may be required for ordinary meals, the kitchen of which must be kept in a sanitary condition with the proper amount of refrigeration for keeping of food on said premises and must comply with all regulations of the local department of health (Section 23038). The floor plan of the restaurant clearly illustrates that the applicant does not meet the State's definition of a bona fide public eating place. Therefore, the approval of the On -Sale beer and wine (Type 41) license will lessen the suitability of any nearby commercially zoned properties for commercial use. F. The use shall not adversely affect the welfare of area residents or result in undue concentration in the neighborhood of establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages including beer and wine. Consideration shall be given regarding whether the proposed use will detrimentally affect nearby residentially zoned communities, considering distance to residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals, public playgrounds, and other establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages. Staff has received a worksheet from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), which indicates that the subject restaurant is currently located in a census tract that has an over - concentration of alcohol permits. ABC defines "over- concentration" as greater than one license per 1,147 residents living within the subject census tract. The population of the census tract (No. 4813) in which the subject property is located is 2,963 residents. The number of allowable on -sale ABC licenses for this census tract is three (3). Currently, there are six (6) authorized on -sale licenses for this census tract. ABC has also determined that this location is located in a high crime district. The City's Chief of Police has reviewed this request and has indicated that this proposal cannot be supported. On January 10, 2012, the Chief of Police conducted a site inspection which revealed that -the floor plan resembles a hostess bar based on his experience with the Asian Gang Taskforce. A hostess bar is not a permitted use in the City. PC Meeting January 17, 2012 CUP 11 -14 (Denlal) Page 10 of 21 In addition, the subject site is 600 feet away from Muscatel Middle School and Rosemead Church of Christ. Several residential properties are situated less than 100 feet away from the subject site. Therefore, the approval of the On -Sale beer and wine (Type 41) license will endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the surrounding properties. Public Notice Process This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to thirty (30) properly owners, publication in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations and on the subject site. Prepared by: Submitted / by: � Lily Trinh Michelle Ramirez Assistant Planner Acting Community Development Director EXHIBITS: A. Resolution 12 -01 B. Floor Plan and Site Plan C. Staff Inspection Pictures D. Email Received from Public Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Vice -Chair Ruiz at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Vice-Chair Ruiz INVOCATION - Commissioner Hunter ROLL CALL - Commissioners Herrera, Hunter, Saccaro, and Vice -Chair Ruiz ABSENT — Chair Eng ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Acting Community Development Director Ramirez, Consultant Wong, City Planner Bennejo, Assistant Planner Trinh, Lt. Tim Murakumi, Chief of Police, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting, 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. .CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - December 19, 2011 Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, to approve Minutes of 12 -19 -11 as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Saccaro No: None Abstain: None Absent: Eng 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 -14 - Lan Tan has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application requesting approval for a new On -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with a bona fide public eating place located at 8772 Valley Boulevard, ATTACHMENT B in the C -31) (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 12.01- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11.14, A REQUEST FOR A NEW ON -SALE BEER AND WINE (TYPE 41) ABC LICENSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A BONA FIDE PUBLIC EATING PLACE, LOCATED AT 8772 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE C-31) (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission DENY Conditional Use Permit 11.14 and ADOPT Resolution No. 12.01 with findings. Assistant Planner Tdnh presented staff report into the minutes. Vice -Chair Ruiz asked the Planning Commission if they had any comments or questions for staff. None Vice -Chair Ruiz opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor or against this project. Gary Mok presented the Planning Commission with written information to be included into the record. Consultant Wong addressed the City Attorney and requested a recess to review the information that was submitted to the Planning Commission by Gary Mok. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, replied a ten (10) minute recess will be takeh to review the information that was just submitted and will reconvene at 7:20 pm. Vice-Chair Ruiz opened the meeting and invited the first guest speaker to the podium. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, recommended to the Planning Commission to not put any more weight onto the information that was just submitted as you would to verbal testimony. He stated what has been submitted are allegations made by someone who is in business dealings with the applicant and the sole conclusary evidence is a judgment from the East District El Monte Court House but it is against the business rather than the individual. He also recommended treating this as normal comments from a member of the public who comes to the podium and do not give it additional weight because it is in written form or using legal language. He also stated this amounts to allegations and matters of opinion and if the Planning Commission has any questions he would be happy to answer them. Vice -Chair Ruiz asked the Planning Commission 'd there were any questions for Greg Murphy, City Attorney, regarding his recommendation. 1110 17; Vice -Chair Ruiz invited Mr. Mok the first speaker to the podium. Gary Mok, speaking on behalf of Chien P. Luu, thanked the Planning Commission and stated he is the individual that submitted the information tonight for the Planning Commission to review. He also stated that he is here tonight in objection to Lan Tan's request. Vice-Chair Ruiz asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for Mr. Mok. None Vice-Chair Ruiz invited then next speaker to the podium. Lan Tan, applicant, stated that the information submitted tonight is for a previous business investment at a different location and a court date of February 17, 2012 has been set. He stated that he does not understand why Mr. Mok is here objecting to his application. He stated he had a previous business with this gentleman and gave a brief history of other businesses he has in other cities and stated that some are in his wife's name. He also stated that he has gone to the Temple City Sheriffs to try to obtain information about his case but has been unable to receive anything. He stated that he had also contacted ABC but was told that if the Conditional Use Permit is not approved by the City they cannot approve the ABC Beer & Wine license. He stated that he does not understand what is going on and will need to contact his attorney. Vice -Chair Ruiz thanked the applicant and asked if anyone had any questions. Commissioner Herrera asked if the denial is recommended because of incidents at this location and requested more information. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated the recommendation by staff is to Deny Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 and asked Assistant Planner Trinh for more detail. Assistant Planner Trinh explained to the Planning Commission that the applicant misrepresented the floor plan on his application and referred to Exhibit B. She explained that when staff, the Chief of Police, and Public Safety conducted a site inspection the floor plans submitted did not match what was actually at the restaurant. She referred to the pictures in Exhibit C and pointed out that the booths did not have tables, they are almost fully enclosed, there are individual televisions, three large big screens, and the lighting is very dim in the rear, whereas in the front it is fully I'rt. She stated that when she spoke with the Chief of Police, he informed her that the applicant indicated to him that he would like to open the rear of the building for entertainment and karaoke. She stated the applicant has also applied for these business license applications with the City. She stated because of this misrepresentation staff cannot support this use. Vice -Chair Ruiz thanked Assistant Planner Trinh for her exhibits and explanation. He stated that Greg Murphy, City Attorney, has explained that we should not any emphasis on the new information submitted tonight but base our decision on the specifics of the lounge and what the applicant is proposing to have. He also stated that he would like to hear from Lt. Tim Murakami, the Chief of Police who is present tonight. He asked if there were anymore questions or comments from the audience. None Vice -Chair Ruiz closed the Public Hearing and invited Lt. Tim Murakumi, Chief of Police to the podium. Lt., Tim Murakumi, Chief of Police, stated that he had been an original member of the Asian Gang Taskforce and this building in the past was known as the Rose Room. He stated that when it was the Rose Room a lot of violence had taken place there and it was eventually closed down. This applicant has re- opened this building as a restaurant, but his concern is that the back room that has been transitioned back into a hostess bar. He stated that he is not opposed to a restaurant serving beer and wine but he is concerned with the back room. He explained that the back room is not set up to hold a Quincinera or birthday parties, but is set up like a hostess bar. He stated that he has spoken with the applicant and explained to him that he would support a restaurant but he cannot support a nightclub. He stated that he cannot support a nightclub scenario and explained in the past they have had difficulties with the back room being subleased to individuals that used the restaurants liquor license. He stated that this building has been a past gangster club. He explained that this would not benefit the City and foresees potential problems for law enforcement if approved. Vie -Chair Ruiz asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Lt. Tim Murakumi, Chief of Police. Commissioner Hunter stated she thought this application is for a family restaurant. Lt. Tim Murakumi, Chief of Police, replied that is what the application states but when you look at the building it is not set for that. He explained that the problem is that there is a door in the back room that has an entrance to the street and the door from the restaurant to the rear area has been closed off giving the appearance of two separate entities. He also stated without going through that back door you cannot see what is going on in that back room at all. He stated that he has recommended to the applicant that the restaurant be redesigned and extend the restaurant seating to the back room. Assistant Planner Trinh stated that staff has spoken with Mr. Tan regarding the floor plan and possibly modifying the rear area into a bona -fide eating establishment, but he has indicated that he wants the entertainment, dance floor, and karaoke in the rear. Vice-Chair Ruiz asked Assistant Planner Trinh I the applicant has denied all request and recommendations that staff has made. Assistant Planner Trinh replied yes and therefore staff is denying this application. Vice -Chair Ruiz thanked staff and asked if anyone else had any questions. Lan Tan, applicant, stated he would like to address the Planning Commission. Vice -Chair Ruiz re-opened the Public Hearing and asked Lan Tan to the podium. Lan Tan clarified that the floor plan, which is Exhibit B, is the floor plan that had been approved previously in 2008. He also explained that he would like the back to be a sports bar and gave examples of what it will include (televisions to watch sport events, three big screens, karaoke, and a dance floor). He also stated he has a business in Temple City and compared this building to that one. Vice -Chair Ruiz thanked Mr. Tan for his comments and explained that because he has not agreed to any of the request and recommendations from staff, they are recommending the Denial of Conditional Use Permit 4 11 -14. He closed the Public Hearing and asked If the Commissioners had additional comments or questions. Commissioner Saccaro stated that even though the floor plans may have been approved previously for a restaurant, the floor plan is not acceptable today for a new Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC License. Vice-Chair Ruiz stated he agrees with Commissioner Saocaro and the pictures in Exhibit C speak for themselves. He thanked Lt. Tim Murakumi, Chief of Police, and staff for their hard work, Consultant Wong stated he would like to reiterate a comment made by Commissioner Saccaro. He stated the ABC does not meet the criteria, but the Planning Commission decision should be based on the city code which states it should be a bona -fide eating establishment and this establishment is not. He stated that staff has asked for the applicant to modify his plans and he has refused to do so and that is why staff is recommending the Denial of Conditional Use Permit 11 -14. Vice-Chair Ruiz thanked Consultant Wong and asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Saccaro, to approve the DENIAL of Conditional Use Permit 11.14 and ADOPT Resolution No. 12-01 with findings. Vote resulted in: Yes: Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Saccaro No: None Abstain: None Absent: Eng Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated if any member of the public or the applicant would like to appeal this matter the appeal must be filed within 10 days of tonight's decision and the appeal will be heard by the City Council. 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Herrera asked staff for an update on the red curb on Delta Avenue off of Valley Boulevard. City Planner Bermejo replied that concern was submitted to Public Safety and staff will follow -up and verify status. 6. MATTERS FROM STAFF Acting Community Development Director Ramirez reminded the Panning Commission of the upcoming Lunar New Year Festivities taking place this Saturday, January 21, 2012 as long as the weather permits it, if it rains then it All be held on Sunday, January 22, 2012 or the following weekend. She stated this will be taking place at the Auto Auction site. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, February 6, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. ATTE Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary M l' PC RESOLUTION 12 -01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 -14, A REQUEST FOR A NEW ON -SALE BEER AND WINE (TYPE 41) ABC LICENSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A BONA FIDE PUBLIC EATING PLACE, LOCATED AT 8772 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE C -3D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN:5390 -010- 038). WHEREAS, on October 10, » 2011, Lan Tan from Hunan Restaurant filed a Conditional Use Permit application, requesting for a new On -Sale beer and wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with a bona fide public eating place, located at 8772 Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, 8772 Valley Boulevard, is located in the C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone; and WHEREAS, Section 17.112.020(9) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) allows "on -sale alcohol licenses in the C-1, C -3, CBD and M 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: A. The granting of such conditional use permit will be in harmony with the elements or objectives of tF a General Plan; and B. The establishment, maintenance or conduct of -the use for which the conditional use permit is sought will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood thereof; and C. The granting of such conditional use permit will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare. WHEREAS, Section 17.112.100 of the Rosemead Municipal Code states that in addition to the general findings required for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission, or on appeal the City Council, shall find that each of the following facts or conditions exist, prior to the issuance of a new Conditional Use Permit authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages: D. The proposed use will not present problems including, but not limited to, loitering, obstruction ofr pedestrian traffic, increased vehicular traffic, increased parking demard, crime, interference with children on their way to school, interference with shoppers using streets, defacement and damage to property; and . . ATTACHMENT C E. The proposed use will not lessen the suitability of any nearby commercially zoned properties for commercial use; and F. The use shall not adversely affect the welfare of area residents or result in undue concentration in the neighborhood of establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages including beer and wine. Consideration shall be given regarding whether the proposed use will detrimentally affect nearby residentially zoned communities, considering distance to residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals, public playgrounds, and other establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages. 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 WHEREAS, on January 5, 2012, thirty (30) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, in addition to notices 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 Conditional Use Permit 11 -14, and on January 6, 2012, the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional use Permit 11 -14; 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 FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify denying Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 according to the Criteria of Chapter 17.112.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The granting of such conditional use permit will be in harmony with the elements or objectives of the General Plan. FINDING: The site is designated in the General Plan for Commercial and on the zoning map it is designated C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay). The proposed use is in conformity with the General Plan in that C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zoning is a corresponding zone district with the Commercial General Plan land use category. B. The establishment, maintenance or conduct of the use for which the 2 conditional .use permit is sought will: not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood thereof.. FINDING: According to the Ghief of Police, the subject site has historically been the source of law enforcement problems relating to Asian gangs, drugs, and prostitution. On January 10, 2012, the Chief of Police conducted a site inspection which revealed that the floor plan resembles a hostess bar based on his experience with the Asian Gang Taskforce. The applicant told the Chief of Police that he would like to re- open the rear portion of the building a§ a "sports bar, karaoke and dance area," similar to one located in Temple City, which;is essentially known as a hostess bar by the Public Safety Department The Chief of Police is concerned that such business operation would attract clientele which will once again result in problems for the City. In addition, according to ABC, a "bona fide public eating place, °means a place which is regularly and in a bona fide manner used and kept open for the sewing of meals to guest for compensation. and which has suitable kitchen facilities connected therewith, containing conveniences for cooking any assortment of foods which may be required for ordinary meals, the kitchen of which must be kept in a sanitary condition with the proper amount of refrigeration for keeping of food on said premises and must comply with all regulations of the local department of health (Section 23038). The actual use and layout of the restaurant, as opposed to the floor plan submitted to the City, clearly illustrates that the applicant does not meet the State's definition of a bona fide public eating place. Furthermore, the floor plan submitted as Exhibit "C" clearly misrepresents the current restaurant layout and is believe to have been an attempt to deceive the City. The proposed operation is not suitable at the proposed location due to its proximity to sensitive land uses and the high potential that the actual use Would violate City codes and State law. Further, the subject site is 600 feet away from Muscatel Middle School and Rosemead Church of Christ. Residential properties are situated less than 100 feet away from the subject site. Therefore, the approval of the On -Sale beer and wine (Type 41) license will be detrimental to the health, safety, piece, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood. C. The granting of such conditional use permit will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare. FINDING: A site inspection completed by the Planning Division on November 16, 2011, revealed that the floor plan submitted is a misrepresentation of the current restaurant layout. According to Staffs inspection, the front dining area is well lit and consistent with a family style restaurant atmosphere, but the rear dining area resembles a hostess bar setting with dim lighting. The rear dining area is furnished with private, enclosed lounge areas that do not provide table dining. Each lounge area also provides a private television screen. The table seating shown on the applicant's floor plan in this area does not exist. Staff found a dance floor, disco ball, karaoke machinery, and a 3 speaker system in this area instead. 2s In addition, on January 10, 2012, tht Chief of Police conducted a site inspection which revealed that the floor plan resembles a hostess bar based on his experience with the Asian Gang Taskforce. The Chief of Police has indicated that since 2005, when the applicant and his ex -wife assumed control of the restaurant, the rear portion of the restaurant once again became an Asian gang hangout. The LA County Sheriff Department's undercover operations at the subject site revealed underage gang members who fled the scene. , He also indicated that after the alcohol license was cancelled with ABC, the applicant continued to sell alcohol in the restaurant and had alcohol hidden behind the service counter. Therefore, the approval of the On -Sale beer and wine (Type 41) license will be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare. D. The proposed use will not present problems including, but not limited to, loitering, obstruction of pedestdan,traffic, increased vehicular traffic, increased parking demand, crime, interference with children on their way to school, interference with shoppers using streets, defacement and damage to property; and FINDING: The applicant has- indicated to the Chief of Police that he would like to re-open the. rear portion of the building as a "sports bar, karaoke and dance area," similar to one located in Temple City; which is essentially known as a hostess bar by the Public Safety Department. Since the subject site is located 600 feet away from Muscatel Middle School and Rosemead Church of Christ and less than 100 feet away from several residential properties, the approval of the On -Sale beer and wine (Type 41) license will present problems including, but not limited to,: loitering, obstruction of pedestrian traffic, increased vehicular traffic, increased parking demand, crime, interference with children on their way to school, interference with shoppers using streets, defacement and damage to property. E. The proposed use will not lessen the suitability of any nearby commercially zoned properties for commercial use; and - FINDING: A site inspection completed by the Planning Division on November 16, 2011, revealed that the floor plan submitted is a misrepresentation of the current restaurant layout. According to Staffs inspection, the front dining area is well Ift and consistent with a family style restaurant atmosphere, and that the rear dining area resembles a hostess bar setting with dim lighting. A hostess bar is not a permitted use in the City. The rear dining area is furnished with private, enclosed lounge areas that do not provide table dining. Each lounge area also provides a private television screen. The table seating shown on the applicant's floor plan in this area does not exist. Staff found a dance floor, disco ball, karaoke machinery, and a speaker system in this area instead. In addition, according to ABC, a "bona fide public eating place," means as a place which is regularly and in a bona tide manner Lsed and kept open for the serving of meals to guest for compensation and which has suitable kitchen facilities connected therewith, containing conveniences for cooking an assortment of foods which may be required for ordinary meals, the kitchen of which must be kept in a sanitary condition with the proper amount of refrigeration for keeping of food on said premises and must comply with all regulations of the. local department of health (Section 23038). The floor plan of the restaurant clearly illustrates that the applicant does not meet the State's definition of a bona fide public eating place. Therefore,.the approval of the On -Sale beer-and wine (Type 41) license will lessen the suitability of any nearby commercially zoned properties for commercial use. F. The use shall not adversely affect the welfare of area residents or result in undue concentration in the neighborhood of establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages including beer and wine. Consideration shall be given regarding whether the proposed use will detrimentally affect nearby residentially zoned communities, considering distance to residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals, public playgrounds, and other establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages. FINDING: Staff has received a worksheet from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), which indicates that the subject restaurant is currently located in. a census tract that has an over - concentration of alcohol permits. ABC defines "over - concentration' as greater than one license per 1,147 residents living within the subject census tract. The of the census tract (No. 4813) in which the subject property is located is 2,b63 residents. The number of allowable on -sale ABC licenses for this census tract is three (3). Currently, there are six (6) authorized on -sale licenses for this census tract. ABC has also determined that this location is located in a high crime district. , The City's Chief of Police has reviewed this request and has indicated that this proposal cannot be supported. On January 10, 2012, the Chief of Police conducted a site inspection which revealed that the floor plan resembles a hostess bar based on his experience with the Asian Gang Taskforce. A hostess bar is not a permitted use in the City. In addition, the subject site is 600 feet away from Muscatel Middle School and Rosemead Church of Christ. Several residential properties are situated less than 100 feet away from the subject site. Therefore, the approval of the On -Sale. beer and wine (Type 41) license will endanger or otherwise constitute a menace tb the surrounding properties. SECTION 2 . The Planning Commission HEREBY DENIES Conditional Use Permit 11 -14, for a new On -Sale beer and wine (Type 41) license, located at 8772 Valley Boulevard. 5 SECTION 3 . This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on January 17, 2012, by the following vote: YES: HERRERA, HUNTI =R, RUIZ, AND SACCARO NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: ENG SECTION 4 . 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 17 day of January, 2012. for Rui , -Chair CERTIFICATION 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 17 day of January, 2012 by the following vote: YES: HERRERA, HUNTER, RUIZ, AND SACCARO NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: ENG Michelle Ramirez, Sec ary APP ED AS TO FO Gfegory M. urphy, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP N IF HUNAN SEAFOOD RESTAURANT INC. 8772 Val* ]Blvd. Rosemead, Ca. 91770 M January 19, 2012 City ofRosemead Re: C.U.P. and Alcohol License C.C1 , }o I T.G JAN 18 2012 To Whom It May Concern: i We would like appeal the C.U.P. and Alcohol License application, which were denied by'' ! City Commissioners on Jamrary 17, 2012. Any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, Lan Khanh Tan 0 I ATTACHMENT "D" ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 2012 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 -14 8772 VALLEY BOULEVARD SUMMARY On January 17, 2012, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 11 -14, a request for a new On-Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with a bona fide public eating place, known as Hunan Restaurant, located at 8772 Valley Boulevard, in the C-01) (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. The Planning Commission denied CUP 11 -14 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Planning Commission's staff report_ The Planning Commission staff report, meeting minutes, and resolution are attached as Attachments "A" "B ", and "C - , respectively. On January 19, 2012, the City Clerk's office received an appeal -letter, included in this report as "Attachment D ", from the applicant, Lan Tan, requesting to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision to DENY Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 and ADOPT Resolution 2012 -12 (Attachment "E"). ANALYSIS On October 5, 2011, Lan Tan submitted a Conditional Use Permit application requesting approval for a new On -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with a bona fide public eating place located at 8772 Valley Boulevard, in the C -30 (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. Upon hearing all testimonies from the public, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 12 -01, denying CUP 11 -14. CUP 11 -14 was denied based on the following reasons: • A site inspection completed by the Planning Division, Chief of Police, and Code Enforcement revealed that the floor plan (Attachment "F") submitted is a misrepresentation of the current restaurant layout The front dining area is well lit ATTACHMENT E -- AAPROYEC FOR MY COUNCILAGBJDA: City Council Report February 14, 2012 Page 2 of 3 and consistent with a family style restaurant atmosphere, while the rear dining area is configured as a hostess bar setting with dim lighting and lack of dining tables. The Chief of Police has reviewed this request and has indicated that the applicant's proposal cannot be supported. He has indicated that the rear portion of the restaurant has historically been used as a hostess bar, under the disguise of a legitimate family restaurant. A hostess bar is not a permitted use in the City_ The California Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) defines a "bona fide public eating place' as a place which is regularly and in a bona ride manner used and kept open for the serving of meals to guest for compensation and which has suitable kitchen facilities connected therewith, containing conveniences for cooking an assortment of foods which may be required for ordinary meals, the kitchen of which must be kept in a sanitary condition with the proper amount of refrigeration for keeping of food on said premises and must comply with all regulations of the local department of health (Section 23038). Therefore, the actual use of the restaurant, as proposed on the floor plan submitted by the applicant. Beady does not meet the State's definition of a bona fide public eating place. On February 6, 2012, staff received a letter from the property owner (attached as Attachment "GJ. The property owner has stated that he opposes the tenant's intention of operating a restaurant in the front portion of the building and operating the rear portion of the building as a hostess bar. With the property owner's disapproval of the use, the City Council has additional grounds to UPHOLD the Planning Commission's DENIAL_ LEGAL REVIEW Resolution 2012 -12 has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Section 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects that consist of inspections to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, and safety of a project from environmental review. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 is classified as a Class 9 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15309 of CEQA guidelines and therefore exempt from further environmental analysis. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to thirty (30) property owners, publication in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations. City Council Report February 14, 2012 Page 3 of 3 Pre ared b . Prepared by: Lily Trinh Michelle Ramirez Assistant Planner Acting Community Development Director Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 17, 2012 Attachment B: Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 17, 2012 Attachment C: Planning Commission Resolution 12 -01 Attachment D: Appeal Letter, dated January 19, 2012 Attachment E: CC Resolution 2012 -12 Attachment F: Restaurant Floor Plan Attachment G: Opposition Letter from the Property Owner, dated February 0, 2012 Minutes of the Joint City Council, and Housing Development Corporation February 14, 2012 The Joint meeting of the Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council was called to order by Mayor Ly at 7:08 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: DirectodCouncll Member Clark INVOCATION: Director/Council Member Low PRESENT: PresidentfMayor Ly, Vice- President/Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, Directors/Council Members Alarcon, Clark and Low STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth, Acting Community Development Director Ramirez, Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery- Soott, Public Works Direcbm Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda 1. ORDINANCES READ BY TITLE ONLY State law requires that all ordinances be read in full prior to the City Council taking action; however, by motion, unanimously adopted, the City Attorney can be instructed to read all ordinances by title only.. Recommendation: That the City Attorney be instructed to read all ordinances which appear on this agenda by title only, and that further reading be warred. Dlrector/Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Vlce- Presldent/Mayor Pro Tom Sandra Armenia, to approve ordinances by title only. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenia, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE -None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Agenda ftem 3B was mowed up for discussion. Rosemead Housing Devebpwd Corporation and Qy Causal Joint Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2091 Page 9 of 11 ATTACHMENT F B. Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 11.14 -6172 Valley Boulevard On January 17, 2012, the Qty of Rosemead Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing for Conditional Use Pert 11 -14, a request for anew On -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with a bona fide public eating place, known as Hunan Restaurant, located at 8772 Valley Boulevard, in the C3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. The Planning Commission denied CUP 11 -14 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Planning Commission's staff report On January 19, 2012, the City Clerk's office received an appeal letter from the applicant, Lan Tan, requesting to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. Recommendation: That the City Council UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision to DENY Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 and Adopt Resolution No. 2012 -12, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11.14, A REQUEST FOR A NEW ON -SALE BEER AND WINE (TYPE 41) ABC LICENSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A BONA FIDE PUBLIC EATING PLACE, LOCATED AT 8772 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE C31) (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN: 5390 -010.038) Executive DfredorlCity Manager Afred gave a Wet summary of the staff report. Assistant PlannerlJly Trinh explained that on January 17a the Rosemead Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 to request a new Type 41 beer and wine license in conjunction with a bonafide public eating place known as Hunan Restaurant. After hearing all the testimony on this Rem the request was denied by the Planning Commission. The applicant submitted a letter to the City Clerk's Office appealing the Commission's decision. The Commission denied the permit due to the following reasons: After a site inspection was conducted by the Planning Division, the Chief of Police, and Code Enforcement R was revealed that the floor plan submitted is a misrepresentation of the current restaurant layout. The front eating area is well It and is consistent with a family restaurant atmosphere; however, the rear dining area is configured as a hostess bar setting with dim lighting and lack of dining tables, A hostess bar Is not permitted in the City. Secondly, the actual use of the restaurant as proposed by the applicant clearly does not meet Cal'dornia Alcohol License and Beverage Contrors definition of a bonafide eating plate. The Planning Division, the Chief of Police and Code Enforcement have tried to work with the applicant to modify the floor plan of the rear area into a family restaurant atmosphere; however, the applicant indicated that he did not want to modify the floor plans. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Qty Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 and approve Resolution 2012- 12. Lan Tan — Restaurant owner asked that the City Council postpone the public hearing to try to work with staff and remodel the back portion of the restaurant. Rosemead hbuftDerelepnrerd Corporation and City CouW Joint Meaft Mirades ofFebtuaw 14, 2011 Page 2 of 11 Mr. Aitred stated that staff would like to continue the public hearing to March 27 and give the Planning Division and Public Safety sufficient lime to work with the applicant to possibly modify the rear end of the building. PresidenNMayor Ly opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p. m.; there being no comments PresidenWayor Ly continued the Public Hearing to the March 27, 2012 City Council meeting. DirectorlCouncil Member Pally Low made a motion, seconded by DlrectoriCouncil Member William Alarcon, to continue the Public Hearing on March 27e. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, LOW, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None A. Public Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2012 -13 Action Plan for Federally- Funded Programs The City Council will conduct its required annual public hearing regarding the projected use of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds for the upcoming 2012 -2013 fiscal year. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has not yet announced the final amounts to be allocated to participating communities; however, cities have been warned that Congress will make severe cuts to these programs — an expected 35.6% in Rosemead's CDBG allocation and 25% decrease in HOME funds. The drastic funding reduction to the CDBG program will result in reduced funding for the Ctlys Senior Nutrition Lunch program currently operated at the Garvey Community Center and the Rosemead Community Recreation Center. Due tD the funding reductions, it may be necessary to consolidate the City's two Senior Nutrition Lunch programs Into a single location. Under federal regulations, no more than 15% of the CDBG allocation (or an estimated $114,750) can be used for "social service" activities, Written proposals have been received from seven (7) organizations that are current recipients, which include the Family Counseling Services, People for People, Rosemead High School, Rosemead School District, Southern California Housing Rights Center, The Whole Child, and YMCA of West San Gabriel Valley. In addition, proposals have also been submitted by Family Promise and Mentally and Educationally Retarded Citizens, Inc. (Mercil. Due to the impending federal funding reductions, allocations to social service agencies will also be reduced or in some cases eliminated. Recommendation. That the City Council conduct a public hearing and take public testimony on the Annual Action Plan covering the period July 1, 2012 —June 30, 2013. No further City Council action is necessary. Acting Community Development Director Michelle Ramimz reviewed the staff report. Rosemead Housing Devokpment Corporaton and CtyCouncif Mat Meeting MlnWes of Fe6nmry 14, 2011 Page 3 of 11 PresidenWayor Ly opened the Public Hearing at 7.20 p.m George Nalbach — Representative of Santa Anita Family Services explained that CDGB funds received are used to offer family counseling and a variety of other services to Rosemead families. John Lovato — Representative of the Rosemead School District stag that the CDGB funding helps to provide parents and students with parenting classes, conflict resolution, and educating parents and students to raise achievements. Ron Esguivel — Representative of the Rosemead School District stated that attendance of diverse families in the parenting losses have increased and thanked the City Council for supporting the program. Norene Rand — Director of People for People thanked the City Council for their continued support and funding which has provided two part-time employees and services for over 75 Rosemead families. Holly Knapp — Representative of People for People thanked the City Council for their support and the City assistance during Christmas season that helped many families. Leonor Ortega — Representative of the Housing Rights Center sued that their program provides many services to landlords and tenants in the City of Rosemead. Charlene Dimas Peinado — Chief Executive Officer of the Whole Child program stated they provide homeless famly services to families that need housing assistance. Martha Escanuelas — Representative of Mentally and Educationally Retarded Citizens, Inc., thanked City Council for considering their application for CDGB funding and added that they provide services to mutil- handicap, non - verbal patients to improve their quality of I'de. Presfderltft yor Ly cbsed the Public Hearing at 7.37 p.m. No further action was required at this time. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Demands Resolution No. CDC 2012 -04 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. CDC 2012 —04 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESOR AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,775,236.64 NUMBERED 11677 THROUGH 11661 INCLUSIVELY Rosemead Housing Devebpm l Corporaft and C1ty Council Joint Meeting Mi 2011 Page 4 of 11 e Resoludon No. HDC 2012 — 02 Recommendation. to approve Resolution No. HDC 2012 — 02 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,914.30 NUMBERED 1543 THROUGH 1544 INCLUSIVELY e Resolution No. 2012 —13 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2012 —13 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,916,367.63 NUMBERED 76117 THROUGH 76355 INCLUSIVELY B. Installation of Full Capture Trash System in Catch Basins Projects —Award of Contract As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved the 'Installation of Full Capture Trash Systems in Catch Basins ProjecN, which consists of retrofitting sixtpone (61) of the City's 661 stomxwater catch basins with trash capture devices to prevent Infiltration of trash from the storm water system to the waterways. The retrofit of these sixty-one basins is the first phase in retrofitting all catch basins by October 2016 in compliance with the LA River Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and water quality permit mandates. Recommendation, That the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications for the project; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Time Structure in the amount of $26,960.00 and establish an amount of $4,000 (approximately 15 %) to cover the cost of unforeseen construction expenses. Juan Nunez — asked if gardeners are required to obtain permits because of the concern of blowing trash on the street. President/Mayor Ly explained that the unfunded mandate is from the Environmental Protection Agency, which requires cities to capture the incoming water from storm drains. Dfretdor of Public Works Marcarello stated that the catch basins are to regulate trash being dumped in stone drains. Rosemead Houft Development Owporation and City Council Joint Meaft Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 5 of 11 DirectodCounc►7 Member Clark expressed concern that the catch basins may have unintended consequences and clog the storm drains. Executive DkedorlCity Manager AkW explained that the cost to install the stone drains will be $27,000. C. Approval of Parcel Map No. 71253 -3333 Delta Avenue Parcel Map No. 71253 is being submitted for consideration and approval prior to the recordation of the parcel map. All conditions of approval and public improvements on the site have been completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Recommendation: That the City Council approve Parcel Map No. 71253 and direct the City Clerk to arrange for the recordation of the map. D. Right -oRWay Certification for Federally- Funded Projects As part of the City's 2011.12 Capital Improvement Program budget, the City Council approved a program titled "Hellman/San Gabriel Intersection Improvements ", which consists of the construction of concrete Intersection, traffic signal upgrade and appurtenances at the intersection of Hellman Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard. This project is federally- funded through the Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2012 -11, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC ,WORKS, TO EXECUTE RIGHT -0F -WAY CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY- FUNDED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION E Resolution No. 2012 -02 Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to accept Irrevocable Offers of Dedication Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (IOD) are made In conjunction with private improvements projects and map subdivisions, usually as a condition of approval related to a project IODs represent a portion of land/real property that is dedicated by a property owner to the City for a public purpose (such as right-of -way enhancement, sidewalk installation, or planting of street trees). IODs are reviewed by the Public Works Department and subsequently presented to the City Council for consideration. After completion of improvement work (e.g. installation of sidewalk, bees), the City can formally accept the offer of real property to be used for public purposes. Approval of the resolution will allow the City Manager or designee to accept IODs on behalf of the City. Such delegation will streamline efforts for processing these items. Rosemead Housing Dere"eaf Corporation and Coy Council Joint Meeft Minutes ofF-ebmary 14, 2011 Page 6 of 11 Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2012 -02, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE In ACCEPT IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION F. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Replacement Project— Award of Contract As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved the'Skfewalk, Curb and Gutter Replacement Project°, which consists of the repair and replacement of sidewalk, curb and gutter in various locations in the City. This project will Improve American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and Is funded through gas tax monies. Due to the current competitive construction climate, the successful bid received was lower than anticipated and budgeted. it is therefor: prudent to take advantage of the low prices received and add additional sidewalk locations to this project. Additional locations will be added based on the City's Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repair List. These locations have been compiled with input from the Traffic Commission, the public, and staff observations. Based on this, it is recommended that a 25% contingency amount be allocated to this construction project. The contingency amount is within the limb established in the City Purchasing Policy and will be used to cover unforeseen construction expenses and the installation of additional repair locations. Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Replacement Project 2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Kormx, Inc. for the Sidewalk, . Curb and Gutter Replacement Project in the amount of $142,057. In addition, authorize an amount of $35,000, as a contingency, to cover the cost of additional sidewalk locations and unforeseen construction expenses. G. Resolution No. 2012 -14— Proclaiming Termination of Local Emergency On December 1, 2011, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed a local emergency existed in the City of Rosemead. The City Council ratified said aeon on December 5, 2011, as a result of conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property caused by high winds. At this time it is appropriate to proclaim the termination of said local emergency. Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2012 -14, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, PROCLAIMING TERMINATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY Rosemead Housing Development Corpomhon and CRY Council Jolyd Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page 7471 Vice- PresidentlMayor Pro Tern Sandra Armenta made a motion, seconded by DirectorlCouncil Member Polly Low, to approve Consent Calendar items, Vote resulted in; Yes: Alarcon, Armente, Clark, Low, Ly No: Notre Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Mid-Year Budget Update The City Council will be provided with a FY 2011 -12 mid -year budget update presentation along with a brief economic look towards the upcoming fiscal year. The recently updated Strategic Plan identities key goals and objectives to ensure long -term fiscal sustainabllity and staff has been working to ensure that these are met. however, recent actions taken by State lawmakers to eliminate redevelopment have caused immediate adverse impacts on the stability of the City's current fiscal year and beyond. At this fine, efforts are being made to mitigate the need to draw from the General Fund reserve balance at a rate of approximately $100,000 per month in order to maintain existing service levels. Aside from the impacts of the deficits created by the State, the General Fund revenues have proven to be stable and are generally in fine with budget projections. Assessed property values are expected to moderately increase this year, sales tax revenue's projected to meet budget expectations and most other revenues have not varied significantly from budget estimates, Recommendation: That the City Council approve receive and file the mid -year update. Finance Dkedor Brim raviewed the staff report and presented a brief PbwwrPOinf presentation PowerPoint presentation is available in the Cky Clarlr's office for public view. Executive Director Alred reiterated that the City Council previously adopted five pdnclples as part of the City's annual budget and strategic plan to help approach and maintain responsibility to the community and oversee financial responsibilities. Finance Director Brfsco explained that the legislation also passed Senate Bill 89, which eliminated Vehicle License Fees; these are fees that cities collected, resulting in a $204,000 short fall. PresidenWayor Ly asked if the League of California Cities was taking action regarding the elimination of Vehicle License Fees, which violates Proposition 22 Assistant CilyManager Hawkesworth stated that a joint lawsuit between the League of California Cities and some cities have fled preliminary filings against SB89. Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and Clly Caeca Joint AWng Minutes of February 14, 2011 Page a of 11 Finaoce Dimctor Briseo continued with presentation and added that the current general fund expenditures will cover the remaining redevelopment agency's cost left of $500,000. Mr. Bit= reiterated that management has limited their supplies and service cost. Some Capital Improvement Project funds are able to accumulate through Proposition A or Proposition C funds that can be used for other projects. With the dissolution of redevelopment, came the elimination of low - moderate income housing funds; however, with Senate Bill 654, it will help preserve some of the housing money but will not come into effect until January 2013. DfreetodCoundI Member Clark asked 9SB654 had been approved and signed by the Governor. ftsfdenf/Mayor Ly clarified that SB654 was passed by the legislators and the bill is considered a non - urgency bill; therefore, will rot take effect until 2013. Assistant City Manager Hawkesworih explained that Assembly Bill 1585 had not been approved which contains the urgency language that resulted in removing the urgency language from S9654. He added that the bill supports low income and only secures the existing fund balance and does not authorize any new funding. Finance DirectorBrisco continued with the presentation and explained that in order to maintain financial stability the City will have to control cost, staff adjustments to programs, renegotiate with contractors, limit traveling and meeting expenses, update fee schedules, and seek highest yield investments. DlrectodCouncil Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Vice-PresidentfMayor Pro Tom Sandra Armenia, to receive and file the mid year budget update. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenia, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 6, MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Oversight Board Appointments The City Council will consider the appolntment of two individuals to serve on the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency of the former Rosemead Community Development Commission. One Oversight Board Member will be appointed by the Mayor to represent the City. The other Board Member will, be appointed by the Mayor from the ranks of the Rosemead Employees Association to represent the employees of the former Rosemead Community Development Commission. Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction or take action as it deems appropriate. Executive Dfndoff0ty Manager A&W reviewed the staff report Roswnad Housing Deveiopmerd co poretw and City Owneff.100 Meeting Vinutes ofF&uary f4, 2011 page g of 1r City Council nominated City Manager Allred as a board member to the Oversight Committee. DirectodCouncil Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Nee- PresidentlMayor Pro Tom Sandra Armenta, to appoint City Manager Allred to the Oversight Committee. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None City Cound7 nominated Administrative Assistant Martin Jones as a board member to the Oversight Committee. DirectodCouncil Member William Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Director/Council Member Margaret Clark, to appoint Administrative Assistant Martin Jones to the Oversight Committee. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None DiredtorlCouncil Member Clark asked for the meeting to adjoum in memory of Xavier Quintanilla, who passed away. Piesident/Mayor Ly explained that six years ago this month his father was diagnosed with cancer and lost his battle a year after that Mr. Ly explained that he had shaved his hair off as a way to honor his father and an opportunity to raise money for Relay for Life, which the City of Rosemead.participates in every year. He urged the public to log into the websile to donate to this cause and participate in the City's Relay for Life event to be held on June 9a. PresidenWayor Ly adjourned the Housing Development Corporation and City Council meeting to closed session at 8..08 p.m. 7. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel — Potential Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9 (b):1 matter The Housing Development Corporation and City Council reconvened back from dosed session Willi no reportable actions at 8 :24pm. Rwwai d Housing Mwebpnent Cowratron and Cny Came Jw d Meet4g Minutes of Febyy 14 2011 Page 10 0111 B. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned in memory of Xavier Quintanille at 8:24 p.m. The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on February 28, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. O � ATTEST: Gloria Molleda City Clerk Rosemead Housing Derebpment Cwpwdon and City CouncH.Wht Meefhg Minutes of Fetuuwy 14, 2011 Page 11 of 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk for the Rosemead City, do hereby certify that the meeting minutes from February % 2012, were duly and regularly approved and adopted by the Rosemead City Council on the 1P of March 2012, by the following vote to wit Yes: Alarcon, Arrnenta, Clark, Low, Ly, No: None Abstain: None Absent: None " f i4wL G orla Molleda City Clerk HUNAN SEAFOOD RESTAURANT 8772 Valley Blvd Rosemead, CA 91770 March 6, 2012 City of Rosemead Planning & Community Development ATTN: Lily Trinh 8838 E. Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 Dear Ms Trinh: Recenr,.;l try Date- 3 8' /a I would like to request an extension of 60 days for my appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional Use Permit for the sale of beer and wine at Hunan Seafood Restaurant. I have been reviewing the concerns expressed by the Commission, the staff and the Sheriff's Department and I have recently engaged the services of a consultant to assist in the development of a new site plan to address those issues. It appears that some creativity will be necessary to address all the issues raised at the hearing and in meetings with the staff. The limitations of the site make it difficult to accommodate all of the concerns. I would appreciate the additional time to work with my consultant, and engineer to make the necessary revisions to the plans and submit them with adequate time for staff review. I have been operating a successful business in just a portion of the existing building for the last seven years and 1 would very much like to expand that operation to take full advantage of the entire building. For your records I have engaged the services of Mr. Michael Lewis of Lewis & Company Inc. to assist in the revisions to my plans. I would be most appreciative of your favorable consideration of my request Sincerely, Tony Tan Owner ATTACHMENT G ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 27, 2012 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 -14 8772 VALLEY BOULEVARD SUMMARY On January 17, 2012, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 (CUP 11 -14), a request for a new On -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with a bona fide public eating place, known as Hunan Restaurant. The restaurant is located at 8772 Valley Boulevard, in the C -31D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. The Planning Commission denied CUP 11 -14 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Planning Commission's staff report. The Planning Commission staff report, meeting minutes, and resolution are included in this report as Attachments "A ", "B ", and "C", respectively. On January 19, 2012, the City Clerk's office received an appeal letter (Attachment "D ") from the applicant, Lan Tan, requesting to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing for the appeal of CUP 11 -14 on February 14, 2012. The City Council staff report and meeting minutes are included in this report as Attachments "E" and "F." During the public hearing Mr. Tan asked the City Council to postpone the public hearing so that he could continue to work with staff to address all the issues raised during the Planning Commission hearing. The Council unanimously approved his request, and the meeting was continued to March 27, 2012. On March 8, 2012, staff received a second letter from Mr. Tan (Attachment "G "), requesting an additional 60 days to address the City's concerns. The letter states that he has engaged the services of Mr. Michael Lewis, of Lewis & Company, Inc. to assist in the revisions of his plans. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council CONTINUE the public hearing for the appeal of CUP 11 -14 to June 12, 2012. APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: ATTACHMENT H City Council Report March 27, 2012 Page 2 of 2 ANALYSIS On February 22, 2012, Community Development Department and Public Safety Department staff completed a joint site inspection of the Hunan Restaurant. Mr. Tan was also present. During the meeting, staff provided Mr. Tan with several recommendations for interior floor plan modifications to make the rear portion of the building consistent with a restaurant establishment. As the City Council may recall, the Planning Commission denied CUP 11 -14 on the basis that the proposed floor plan was a misrepresentation of the current restaurant layout. Although the submitted floor plan resembled dining area throughout the establishment, the actual set -up of the rear of the establishment resembled a hostess bar. A hostess bar is not permitted use in the City. During the City Council meeting on February 14, 2012, staffs report included a letter from the property owner (Attachment "H "), dated February 6, 2012. In this letter the property owner states that he opposes the tenant's intention of operating a restaurant in the front portion of the building and operating the rear portion of the building as a hostess bar. Mr. Tan states in his recent letter to the.City that creativity will be necessary to address all the issues raised during the hearings and meetings with staff. If Mr. Tan intends to operate a full service restaurant at 8772 Valley Boulevard, floor plan modifications will be required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Section 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects that consist of inspections to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, and safety of a project from environmental review. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 is classified as a Class 9 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15309 of CEQA guidelines and therefore exempt from further environmental analysis. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Prepared by: Prepared by: Sheri Bermejo City Planner Michelle Ramirez Acting Community Development Director Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 17, 2012 Attachment 6: Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 17, 2012 Attachment C: Planning Commission Resolution 12 -01 Attachment D: Appeal Letter, dated January 19, 2012 Attachment E: City Council Staff Report, dated February 14, 2012 Attachment F: City Council Meeting Minutes, dated February 14, 2012 Attachment G Letter requesting a 60 day extension from Lan Tan, dated March 8, 2012 Attachment H: Opposition Letter from the Property Owner, dated February 6, 2012 Minutes of the City Council Meeting March 27, 2012 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Ly at 7:02 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tern Armenta INVOCATION: Council Member Alarcon PRESENT: Mayor Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, Council Members Alarcon, Clark and Low STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richmahl Assistant City Managerr_Hawkesworth, Acting Community Development Director Ramirez, Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery- Scott, Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda 1. ORDINANCES READ BY TITLE ONLY State law requires that all ordinances be read in full prior to the City Council taking action; however, by motion, unanimously adopted, the City Attorney can be instructed to read all ordinances by title only. Recommendation: That the City Attorney be instructed to read'all ordinances which appear on this agenda by title only; and that further reading be waived. Mayor Pro Tern Sandra Armenta made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low to approve ordinances by title only. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Juan Nunez - disagreed with the recommendation of item 5F to raise the Vietnamese flag side by side with the American flag; but rather have it raised in their perspective churches, homes or clubs. Mr. Nunez asked if seniors pay for their lunches at the community centers. He suggested that seniors should play an addition dollar more to prevent the program from exhausting. Mayor Ly replied that the seniors, who are residents of Rosemead, may give a donation of $1.25 and $3 for non residents. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2012 Page 1 of 11 ATTACHMENT Ron Esquivel — representative of the Rosemead School District thanked the City Council for the continued support and reiterated that the program is asking for at least $7,000 to operate. Mr. Esquiviel also thanked City staff for being responsive and removing a damaged tree in from of his property. i<3111111111:2[7�94ki I /s1INL61 • Earthquake Preparedness Month Proclamation Mayor Ly read the proclamation and declared the month of April as Earthquake Preparedness Month Mandy Wong Public Safety Coordinator explained that as part of the 2012 -2013 Strategic Plan, staff created a challenge called Get Ready Rosemead Challenge, to encourage residents and businesses to build a survival kit and educate the community on emergency preparedness. • Recognition to outgoing Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern Carina Lieu — representative of Congresswoman Judy Chu's office presented a congressional'recognition certificates to outgoing Mayor Steven Ly and outgoing Mayor Pro Teri Sandra Armenta. Olive Lee — representative of Assembly Member's Mike Eng's office presented certificates of congratulations to outgoing Mayor Steven Ly and outgoing Mayor Pro Tern Sandra Armenta for their leadership and dedication to the City. Mayor Vincent Yu — of Temple City congratulated the Council on the city's improvement projects and presented certificates of recognition to Mayor Steven Ly and Mayor Pro Tern Sandra Armenta for their dedication. Ron Esquiviel — representative of the,Rosemead School District presented a certificate of appreciation to outgoing Mayor Steven Ly and outgoing Sandra Arment6 for their service to the City and dedication to public education. Bob,�ruesch — representative of the Garvey Sc hool District congratulated outgoing Mayor Steven Ly and outgoing Mayor Pro Tern Sandra Armenta for their service. Nick Davalli - Assistant Fire Chief,presented certificates of acknowledgement of dedication of service to outgoing Mayor Steven Ly and outgoing Mayor Pro Tern Sandra Armenta. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 11.14 Denial — 8772 Valley Boulevard On January 17, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 (CUP 11 -14), a request for a new On -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with a bona fide public eating place, known as Hunan Restaurant. The restaurant is located at 8772 Valley Boulevard, in the C -31D (Medium Commercial with a Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 2 of 11 Design Overlay) zone. The Planning Commission denied CUP 11 -14 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Planning Commission's staff report. On January 19, 2012, the applicant, Lan Tan, requesting to appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The City Council opened a public hearing for the appeal of CUP 11 -14 on February 14, 2012. At that time the applicant asked the City Council to postpone the public hearing so that he could continue to work with staff to address all the issues raised by staff and the Planning Commission. The Council approved his request, and the hearing was continued to March 27, 2012. i On March 8, 2012, staff received a second letter from the applicant requesting an additional 60 days to address the City's concerns. Recommendation: That the City Council CONTINUE the public hearing for the appeal of CUP 11 -14 to June 12, 2012. Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Sandra Armenta, to continue the public hearing for the appeal of CUP 1144 to June 12, 2012. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Mayor Pro Tem Armenta announced that a certificate of recognition was received from the Alhambra Unified School District as well. B. `,= Approval of Entertainment Permit for Cafe Cau Vong — 3365 Walnut Grove Avenue, #B On March 13; 2012, the City Council continued a public hearing on an application for an Entertainment License for,the operation of a Karaoke machine between the hours of 8:00 'p;m. and 12:00 a.m., daily, at Cafe Cau Vong On March 20, 2012, the owner of Cafe Cau Vong withdrew his application and requested that the City Council take no further action. Recommendation: No further action is necessary Mayor Ly stated that the applicant requested to withdraw his application. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes March 13, 2012 — Special Meeting Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 3 of 11 B. Claims and Demands • Resolution No. 2012 -19 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2012 —19 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND",DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $974,099.38 NUMBERED 76680 THROUGH 76804 INCLUSIVELY C. Release of Cash Deposit — Parcel Map 68743 A Faithful Performance Bond and a Labor,and Materials Bond were required to guarantee construction sewer laterals, curb and gutter, sidewalk, parkway drains, plant street trees, and install survey monuments for Parcel Map 68743. In lieu of bonds, a cash deposit was issued to the City in the amount of $8,250.00. All improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and there is no reason why the cash deposit should not be released. Recommendation: That the City Council accept the public improvements and survey monuments and refund the cash deposit taMelody Hong. D. Approval,of Undertaking Agreement for Parcel Map No. 71294 — 9223 Rose Street Parcel Map 71294 is being submitted for'consideration and approval along with an undertaking agreemehfto guarantee construction of public improvements subsequent to the recordation of the parcel map. Recommendation: That;the City Council approve Parcel Map No. 71294 and the undertaking agreement and direct the City Clerk to arrange for the recordation of the final map. E. Residential Street Resurfacing Project — Award of Contract As a part of the City's Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved a project titled, "Residential Resurfacing Project ", which consists of asphalt concrete overlay and reconstruction of road pavement and repairs to damaged curb, sidewalk, and gutter locations. The project is funded through Proposition 1 B and Gas Tax funds. Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Residential Street Resurfacing Project; and Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 4 of 11 2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with All American Asphalt for the Residential Street Resurfacing Project in the amount of $866,000.00, and establish a contingency in the amount of 10% of the bid ($86,600) to cover any unforeseen construction expenses. F. Vietnamese American Heritage and Freedom Flag The Vietnamese Refugee Community of Los Angeles County is requesting that the Rosemead City Council support the Vietnamese American citizens of the City of Rosemead by adopting Resolution No. 2012 -19 acknowledging the Vietnamese American Heritage and Freedom Flag as a symbol of freedom and democracy, in,Vietnam. In addition, the Vietnamese Refugee Community of Los Angeles County would jke the City Council to allow them to display the flag side by side with the American flag on the light, posts on Valley Boulevard (from Walnut Grove to Mission Drive) from Saturday, April 28, 2012 thru Saturday, May 5, 2012. The display of the Vietnamese American Heritage Freedom Flag and the United States Flag in this manner is copsistent with the protocol specified in the United States Flag Code. Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2012 -19, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE, CITY COUNCIL OF THE, CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ACKNOWLEGING THE VIETNAMESE AMERICAN HERITAGE AND FREEDOM FLAG AS A SYMBOL OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY IN VIETNAM Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Sandra Armenta, to approve Consent Calendar items. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armerita, Clark, Low; Ly ;- No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 6. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. CDBG;;and HOME Programs Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2012.13 Due to fiscal austerity actions taken by the federal government, the City of Rosemead will incur a 34.25% cut to its current $1,037,683 allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and a 52.39% cut to its current $480,683 HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds. This means the total funds available in the FY 2012 -13 for CDBG will be reduced to $682,256 and for HOME will be reduced to $228,955. The drastic funding reduction to the CDBG program will result in a $48,000 cut to the City's Senior Nutrition Lunch program currently operated at the Garvey Community Center and the Rosemead Community Recreation Center. Due to this funding reduction, the consolidation Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 5 of 11 of the two Senior Nutrition Lunch programs into a single location will be necessary. In addition, due to the CDBG funding reduction, allocations to social service agencies will be reduced or in some cases eliminated. Under federal regulations, no more than 15% of the FY 2012 -13 CDBG allocation (or $102,338) can be used for "social service" activities. This is $53,314 less than the current grant allocation. In addition to the Senior Nutrition Lunch program operated by the Parks and Recreation Department, written proposals were received from eight (8) other organizations that could qualify under the "social service" activity cap with requests totaling $205,355. Unfortunately, the drastic cut to the CDBG program will prohibit the funding of many of these activities while others will be severely reduced as shown in the following table. PROJECT Family Counseling Services Family Promises (Homeless Services) Merci Housing People for People Rosemead High School Rosemead School District Senior Nutrition Lunch Program The Whole Child (Homeless Services) YMCA of W. San Gabriel Valley TOTAL I I another CDBG activity, or eliminated. SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET 2011.12 Approved Budget $ 39,000 $ 27,345 $ 10,000 $ T,000 $ 77,824 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 2012 -13 Request $ 40,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 27,345 $ . %000 $ 7,000 $ 93,010 $ 8,000 $% 5,000 � 2012 -13 Recommended Budget $ „ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 7,328 $ 93,010* $ Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 6 of 11 15 %Cap $ 155,649.00 $ 102,338.00 $ 102,338.00 Anticipated Program Income i $ 15 530.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00 TOTAL SOCIAL SERVICE C AP $ 171,169.00 $ 111,338.00 $ 111,338.00 i Difference $ 0.00 $ (94,017.00) $ 0.00 'Increased costs are due to,, payment of salaries related to the program that were previously paid by CDBG Planning and Administration funds: In addition, the General Fund will contribute $108,670 towards this program. The cut to CDBG funding will also have a negative affect on the amount allowable for Planning and Administrative services. No more than 20% or $136,451 of the FY 2012 -13 grant amount can be used for Planning and Administrative services, which is a reduction of $71,086 from the current FY grant. As a result, several personnel salaries and benefits once paid under the Planning and Administrative services cap must be reduced, moved into another CDBG activity, or eliminated. SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET 2011.12 Approved Budget $ 39,000 $ 27,345 $ 10,000 $ T,000 $ 77,824 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 2012 -13 Request $ 40,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 27,345 $ . %000 $ 7,000 $ 93,010 $ 8,000 $% 5,000 � 2012 -13 Recommended Budget $ „ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 7,328 $ 93,010* $ Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 6 of 11 $ $ 205,355.00 15 %Cap $ 155,649.00 $ 102,338.00 $ 102,338.00 Anticipated Program Income i $ 15 530.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00 TOTAL SOCIAL SERVICE C AP $ 171,169.00 $ 111,338.00 $ 111,338.00 i Difference $ 0.00 $ (94,017.00) $ 0.00 'Increased costs are due to,, payment of salaries related to the program that were previously paid by CDBG Planning and Administration funds: In addition, the General Fund will contribute $108,670 towards this program. The cut to CDBG funding will also have a negative affect on the amount allowable for Planning and Administrative services. No more than 20% or $136,451 of the FY 2012 -13 grant amount can be used for Planning and Administrative services, which is a reduction of $71,086 from the current FY grant. As a result, several personnel salaries and benefits once paid under the Planning and Administrative services cap must be reduced, moved into another CDBG activity, or eliminated. SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET 2011.12 Approved Budget $ 39,000 $ 27,345 $ 10,000 $ T,000 $ 77,824 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 2012 -13 Request $ 40,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 27,345 $ . %000 $ 7,000 $ 93,010 $ 8,000 $% 5,000 � 2012 -13 Recommended Budget $ „ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 7,328 $ 93,010* $ Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 6 of 11 $ 111,338.00 Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 6 of 11 Recommendation: That the City Council receive public input, review, and approve the CDBG and HOME funding recommendations for inclusion in the City's FY 2012 -2013 Annual Action Plan. Final City Council approval of the FY 2012 -13 Annual Action Plan will be scheduled for the April 24, 2012 City Council meeting. Interim Community Development Director Ramirez reviewed the staff report. Council Member Low asked if the City would incur additional cost if the full $93,010 is not allocated from the CDBG grant to the senior nutrition lunch program. Interim Community Development Director Ramirez replied that the city's general fund would have to make up to difference in cost. City Manager Allred stated that the general fund was already allocating $108,670 to the senior nutrition program and further CDBG grant reductions would have to be contributed by the city's general fund. Council Member Clark asked if the amount allocated was enough to keep the senior nutrition program operating as it is. Interim Community Development Director Ramirez replied that with the current amount being allocated, the senior nutrition program would have to be consolidated into one community center. Mrs. Ramirez explained that the total amount needed to operate the senior nutrition program is approximately $206,380 of which $93,010 will be funded by the CDBG Social Service cap; $4,700 by the CDBG Administration cap; and the remaining balance by the city's general fund of $108,670:; Council Member Clark/6sked what services are required by the CDBG program to be funded. Interim Community Development Director Ramirez explained that the U.S Urban Housing and Development highly recommend funding of any social service to assistIow and moderate income family household individuals ' . , Second, to fund programs that service homelessness which has been lacking in the city. Mrs. Ramirez/reiterated that HUD requested that the, city continue allocating money towards homelessness. City Manager Allred replied that staff recommended a $5,000 contribution to the Family Promises program Council Member Clark asked if seniors were asked to pay an additional $1 towards their lunch, would that allocate more money for other organizations. Interim Community Development Director Ramirez replied that the money currently being collected from the senior lunches is a donation only and not a required payment. Mayor Ly asked how much money is collected with senior luncheon donations. Interim Community Development Director Ramirez replied that approximately $11,000 is collected; however, a percentage of the money goes back to CDBG and the general fund for their contribution. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 7 of 11 Council Member Low suggested allocating money to the YMCA, who provides homelessness services. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta asked if the allocated amount to homeless services could be divided among Family Promises and the YMCA. Interim Community Development Director Ramirez stated that the allocation may be divided, however the YMCA has not submitted any required reports to show what they service and Family Promises has submitted the required reports and it's located within the city boundaries. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta suggested dividing other allocated amountsl�Family Counseling and allocate $3,000 to the Rosemead School District. Mayor Ly asked Mrs. Ramirez to explain why $6,000 was recommended for Family Counseling and nothing for the Rosemead School District. Interim Community Development Director Ramirez explained that based on HUD's criteria is to service low to moderate income households. The Family Counseling services everyone including parents and children in the City of Rosemead. Mrs. Ramirez added that Rosemead High School only services the children attending the school Council Member Clark stated that she would like to allocate $1,000 to Rosemead School District; $1,000 to Rosemead High School; and $4,000 to Family Counseling. Interim Community Develop Director Ramirez stated that if Council would accept Mrs. Clark's recommendation, staff would need to inquire with both organizations to verify if they would be able to operate with the limited funding: Ron Esquiviel - that the Family Counseling program targets low income families and provides parenting skills; child care, and planning with the Asian Pacific Clinic in their respective languages. Bob,Etuesch - suggested contacting Habitatfor Humanity to aid in some services and the City may waive fees as in kin services towards HUD money, which may free up for other services. Interim Community Development Director Ramirez stated that unfortunately working with Habitat for Humanity would not affect the bearing on the cap for CDBG funds allocated for social services which is 15 percent of the grant. Council Member Clark reiterated her motion to direct staff to look into allocating $4,000 to Family Counseling; $1,000 Rosemead High School; and $1,000 to Rosemead School District. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta asked that if Rosemead High School could not operate with just $1,000 could that money go back to the Rosemead School District, Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 8 of 11 Interim Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, staff will speak to Rosemead High School and determined if the $1, 000 allocated funds is enough to operate. Council Member Margaret Clark made a motion, seconded by Council Member William Alarcon, to direct staff to look into $4,000 to Family Counseling; $1,000 Rosemead High School; and $1,000 to Rosemead School District. Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Clark, Low No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Council Member Clark explained that the Federal Government has cut funds which make it difficult to allocated money to organizations like People for People. 7. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL Council Member Clark stated that she would not be available to attend the April loth City Council meeting and congratulated Mayor Pro Tern Sandra Armenta. Mayor Ly stated that he was honored to have served as Mayor for the city and thanked Council and staff for maintaining a healthy reserve, fiscal responsibility, and implementing the beautification program, two new aquatic centers, and a new civic parking lot. i Council Member Low thanked outgoing Mayor Steven Ly for his sere as Mayor. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta shared that Mr. Ly was born for theWayor position and was really proud of him for making the council cohesive and accomplished many projects under his Mayorship. Council MetnberAlarcon congratulated outgoing Mayor Steven Ly on his service as Mayor. 8. CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION This is the time for the Council jo reorganize by appointing a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, respectively for one -years A. Appointment of Mayor — City Clerk Presiding City Clerk Molleda announced that it was appropriate to take nominations for City Mayor. Council Member William Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to nominate Sandra Armenta as the City Mayor. Vote resulted in: Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 9 of 11 Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None B. Appointment of Mayor Pro Tem — Newly appointed Mayor Presiding MayorArmenta asked for Mayor Pro Tem nominations. Council Member Margaret Clark made a motion, seconded by CouncihMember Steven Ly, to nominate Polly Low as Mayor Pro Tem. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None City Council presented a certificate of recognition to outgoing MayorSteven Ly for his outstanding services. 9. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation , Government Code Section 54956.9 (ay Cal Poultry City of Rosemead Case No. USDC -CV12 -02409 B. Conference with Legal Counsel — Potential Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9 (b); matter C Conference with Labor Negotiators Government Code Section 54957.6; Negotiators for the City, City Manager Jeff Allred; and Assistant City Manager Matt Hawkesworth City Attorney Richman reiterated that the City Council would discuss three items in Closed Session. Council recessed to closed session at 8:03 p.m. Mayor Armenta reconvened the City Council meeting at 9:32 p.m. City Attorney Richman reported out of closed session that Mayor Pro Tem Polly Low made a motion, seconded Council Member William Alarcon, to directed the law firm Burke, William and Sorenson, LLP to represent the City in the Cal Poultry v. City of Rosemead case with a 510 vote. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 10 of 11 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m. The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on April 10, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Garvey Community Center located at 9108 Garvey Avenue. ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk Sandra Armenta Mayor Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 11 of 11 HUNAN SEAFOOD RESTAURANT 8772 Valley Blvd Rosemead, CA 91770 May 17, 2012 City of Rosemead Planning & Community Development ATTN: Lily Trinh 8 83 8 E. Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 Dear Ms Trinh: I would like to request an additional extension of 30 days for my appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional Use Permit for the sale of beer and wine at Hunan Seafood Restaurant and an Entertainment License. I have been reviewing the concerns expressed by the Commission, the staff and the Sheriff's Department and I have recently engaged the services of a consultant to assist in the development of a new site plan to address those issues. My consultant has met with City Staff and Jim Donovan of the Building Department has made a personal inspection of the site. We have completed a list of changes that need to be made to the site plan and presented it to the staff. I have also obtained a copy of the previous site plan,from the City. I would appreciate the additional time to work with my consultant and newly hired engineer to make the necessary revisions to the plans and submit them with adequate time for staff review. I have been operating a successful business in just a portion of the existing building for the last seven years and I would very much like to expand that operation to take full advantage of the entire building. I would be most appreciative of your favorable consideration of my request. Sincerely, Tony Tan Owner ATTACHMENT J