Loading...
CC - item 3A - Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 11-14 at 8772 Valley BoulevardROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER <# DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2012 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 -14 8772 VALLEY BOULEVARD SUMMARY The City Council is again scheduled to conduct a public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's January 17, 2012 decision to DENY Conditional Use Permit 11 -14, for a new On -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license at the Hunan Seafood Restaurant, located at 8772 Valley Boulevard. At the request of the applicant, the City Council has postponed the public hearing on four prior occasions. 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 "P "). BACKGROUND 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). 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 ITEM NO. City Council Report November 13, 2012 Page 2 of 4 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 "I." 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. The City Council unanimously approved his request on June12th and extended the public hearing to the July 24 City Council meeting. The City Council staff report is included in this report as Attachment "K ". On July 17, 2012, staff received another extension letter from the applicant (Attachment "L "), requesting an additional 90 days extension to work with his consultant and newly hired architect to make necessary revisions to the floor plan. In his letter, he states that he was unexpectedly called out of the country six weeks ago and was unable to communicate with his consultant. On July 24 the Council unanimously approved his request, and the meeting was continued to November 13, 2012. The City Council staff report is included in this report as Attachment "M ". On October 2, 2012, staff received a revised floor plan from the applicant. Staff reviewed the revised floor plan, met with the applicant and his consultant, and issued comments on the revised floor plan. 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. 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. Several months ago, staff from the Community Development Department and Public Safety Department staff completed site inspections of the Hunan Restaurant with Mr. Tan and his consultant. During these meetings, staff provided Mr. Tan and his consultant with recommendations for interior floor plan modifications to make the rear portion of the building consistent with a restaurant establishment. Since February 14, 2012, the applicant has indicated that he will modify the existing floor plan of the restaurant to incorporate staffs recommendations. On October 2 " the applicant submitted a revised restaurant floor plan (Attachment "N "), which was reviewed by the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, and Public Safety Department. Staff's review indicated that staffs comments from prior meetings were not incorporated City Council Report November 13, 2012 Page 3 of 4 into the revised floor plan. For that reason, on October 23, 2012, staff met with the applicant and his consultant to discuss the inconsistencies in the floor plan (Attachment "O "). To transition the front and rear dining areas to illustrate a single restaurant use, staff has asked the applicant to modify the floor plan by incorporating the following items: 1. Open the hallways located east and west of the restrooms and remove all door jams. 2. Remove the service counter located in the rear dining area. 3. Completely remove the two -way mirror along the hallway. 4. Lower the dining booths within the rear dining area to a maximum height of 4' -0" and install dining tables that are consistent with the size of the dining booths. 5. Remove the dance floor, platform area, piano, and all associated entertainment systems and install additional dining tables within the open area. 6. Remove the dim lighting in the rear dining area and create a consistency with the lighting system throughout the restaurant. 7. Repaint the interior walls within the rear dining area to be consistent with the front dining area. During this meeting, the applicant stated that he is unwilling to make any additional modifications to the floor plan of the restaurant. Since this meeting, staff has made several attempts to contact the applicant's consultant for an update, however, he has not responded back. For this reason, it is recommended that this request for a new On -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license be denied for the Hunan Seafood Restaurant. 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 November 13, 2012 Page 4 of 4 Prepared b Lily rinh Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: Prepared by: 01 Michelle Ramirez 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: City Council Meeting Minutes, dated March 27, 2012 Attachment J: Letter requesting a 30 -day extension from Lan (Tony) Tan, dated May 17, 2012 Attachment K: City Council Staff Report, dated June 12, 2012 Attachment L: Letter requesting a second 90 -day extension from Lan (Tony) Tan, dated July 16, 2012 Attachment M: City Council Staff Report, dated July 24, 2012 Attachment N Revised Floor Plan, dated October 2, 2012 Attachment O: Staff's Comment Letter, dated October 23, 2012 Attachment P: Resolution 2012 -12 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 VA LLEY 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 fable 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 Fla = Eusfnesa. •`. -- a . Name Ala a - Notes � - - 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-complianoe with the Municipal Code requirements. On December 14, 1987, the Planning Commission approved a modification to Conditional Use Permit 72 allowing the continuance of alcoholic sales. CUP BB- 424 Rose Room 1988 Transfer of Ownership CUP Be` Rose Room 1989 Transfer of Ownership 466 CUP 50- 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 Corporatlor4Rose Room Restaurant In March of 1993, the City Council granted Dance and Entertainment licenses to the establishment. During the period of this restaurant's 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 sea gamy fights to multiple homicides on the property. In December of 20111, the Rose Room was issued a Notice of Accusation regarding the revocation of the'Dance Permit and Buslness 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 condl8orm that were set forth In the Final Last Chance Agreement. the Owner of the Rose Room decided to dose the establishment In 2005, On October 3, 2005, the Planning Commission granted a new On -Sale beer and wine license (Type 41) to Pho IOng Restaurant. Since the approval of Conditional Use Permit 05• Pho IOngACng's 1021, the restaurant has changed Its business name several CUP 05- 1021 Garden/Hunan 2005 times from Pho King Restaurant 10 Mng'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 cancel on November 10, 2008. PC Meeting January 17, 2012 CUP 11 -14 (venial Page S of 21 North Elevation Site & Surrounding 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-313 (Medlum Commercial with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial South: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: CAD (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial East: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-313 (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial West; General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-313 (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial S` PC Riesling January 17, 2012 - CUP 11 -14 (Denial) - Page 4 of 21 Administrative Analysis 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 cohjuncfic#n 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-mill 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 Staffs 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 near 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 applicants 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. 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, thelLctual 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. a - PC Meeting January 17, 2012 CUP 11 -14 (Daniel) Page 5 of 21 ,a1 , Staff has received a worKsneet from the State uepartment or Hiconotic rseverage 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 Stafrs 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 restaurant, the rear portion of the restaurant has been used as an Asian gang "hangout." Specifically, the LA County Sheriff Department's undercover operations atthe.subject site revealed known underage gang members who filed 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, kamoke 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 17,2D12 CUP 11 -14 (Denial) 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 concemed 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 mail 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 -31) (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay). The proposed use is in conformity with the General Plan in that C-31) (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 (Oenian 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 refigeration 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 pubric 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 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 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 fl, 2012 CUP 11 -14 (Oenlap Page B of 21 indicated that since 2005, when the applicant and his ex -wife assumed control of the restaurant, the near 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 Staffs 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 Meef'vig January 17, 2012 CUP 11-14 (banlal) 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 CLIP 11 -14 (Denlel) 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) property owners, publication in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations and on the subject site. Prepared by: a Lily Trinh Assistant Planner r/!Submitted , by. /1 Michelle Ramirez Acting Community Development Director EXHIBUS: 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, Saccam, 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 Wanner Trinh, Lt. Tim Murakumi, Chief of Police, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attomey, 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 1249 -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, 1 ATTACHMENT "B" in the C-3D (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 C31) (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 of questions for staff. None Vice -Chair Rua 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 taken 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 riot 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 forth 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 if there were any questions for Greg Murphy, City Aftomey, regarding his recommendation. None 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. Mce -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 rot match what was actually at the restaurant She referred to the pictures in Exhibit C and pointed out that the booths did rot 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 1. 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 staled 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 We 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 dub. He explained that this would not benefit the City and foresees potential problems for law enforcement If approved. Vice -Chair Ruiz asked ff 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 bullding 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 near 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 an in that back room at all. He staled 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 -tide 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 prevlously in 2008. He also explained that he would like the back to be a sports bar and gave examples of what it will include (te[evisions 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 C! 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 Rutz stated he agrees wish Commissioner Saccaro and the pictures in Exhibit C speak for themselves. He thanked U. Tim Murakuml, 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 Rutz thanked Consultant Wong and asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Saccaro, to appmve the DENIAL of Conditional Use Permit 11.14 and ADOPT Resolution No. '12-011 with findings. Vote resulted in: Yes: Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Saccaro No: None Abstain: None Absent: Eng Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated 9 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 Clly Council. 5, MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Hen-era asked staff for an update on the red curb on Delta Avenue oft 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 iL If it rains then it will 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. Victor R Vice-Ch ATTE Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 6 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, Ian Tan from Hunan Restaurant filed a Conditional Use Pen 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 I . WHEREAS, 8772 Valley Boulevard, is located in the C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone; and WHEREAS, Section 17.112.020(8) 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 tFbe 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 of rpedestrian 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 . , 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-31) (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 wilt 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 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 a§ a "sports bar, karaoke and dance area," similar to one located in Temple City, which_,is-jassentially 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 publiic 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 orcrinary 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 po6 tiial 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. In addition, on January 10, 2012, thi 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 IA 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 pedestrian,laffic, 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; whlch 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 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, 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 We 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, Use 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 affgct 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.ggoopulation of the census tract (No. 4813) in which the subject property is located is 2U3 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 to 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, HUNTER, 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. '0 or Rui , Chair CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead.at its regular meeting, held on the 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 IM: gory M. urphy, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP N IF HUNAN SEAFOOD RESTAURANT INC. 8772 va11gyBlvd. Rosemead, Ca. 91770 January 19, 2012 City O£Roaemead Re: C.U.P. and Alcohol License C. L, , p I I + I JAN i 8 20 12 To WhomItMay Concern: We would kite appeal the C.U.P. and Alcohol License application, which were denied by City Commissioners on January 17, 2012. Any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, Lan Khanh Tan 1 B S 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 pubic eating place, known as Hunan Restaurant, located at 8772 Valley Boulevard, in the C -313 (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 W. W, 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 C30 (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 an the following reasons: • A sfie 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" Qty Coundl Report February 14, 2012 Pape2of3 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 permit ri use in the City. The Calfomia Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) defines a "bona fide public eating place' as a piece which is n3gulariy and in a bona file manner used and kept open far the serving of meals to guest for compensation and which has suitable kitchen facilities connected therewith, containing comvniences for cooking an assortment of foods which may be required far ordinary meals, the kitchen of which must be la3pt in a sanifery condition with the proper amount of refrigeration for keeping of food an said premises and nmf comply with a7 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, clearly 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 "G'. 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 owners 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 3W 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. dty Cowdl Repot February 14,X112 Pape 3 of 3 Prepared by Z Lily Trinh Michelle Ramirez Assistant Planner Acting Community Development Director AltachmentA: Planning Commission Sla f Report, dated January 17, 2012 Attachment B: Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 17, 2012 Attachment C: Planning Commission ReeohAon 12 -01 Attachment D: Appeal Letter, data January 19, 2012 Attachment E: CC Resolution 2012 -12 Attachment F: Restaurant Floor Plan Attachment Q Oppesidon Letter from the Property Owner, dated February 8, 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 Councl Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: DirectorlCcuncl Member Clark INVOCATION: Director/Council Member Low PRESENT: President/Mayor Ly, Vice•PresidentlMaycr Pm Tern Armenta, DinulorslCoundl Members Alarcon, Clark and Low STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred. City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth, Acting Community Development Director Ramirez, Dsecfor of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery- Scott, Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Mollede 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 tide only, and that further reading be waived. Director/Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Vice- PresldentlMayor Pro Tam Sandra Armenia, to approve ordinances bytitle only. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Arments, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Agenda Item 3B was moved up for discussion. RaswoeadHousingDembprnenrCapwdan and Cfly JWnt6tWft Mlnuta of Fedu* 14 2011 Page t of 11 ATTACHMENT "F" B. Appal of Conditional Use Permit 11.14 -8772 Valley Boulevard On January 17, 2D72, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing for Conditlonal Use Permit 11 -14, a request for a new On -Sale Beer and Vine (Type 41) ABC Dowse in conjunction with a bona fide public cling place, known as Hunan Restaurant, located at 8772 Valley Boulevard, in the C31) (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 reporL On January 19, 2D12, the City Clerks office received an appeal letter from the applicant, Lan Tan, requesting to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. Recommendation: Thatthe City Council UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision to DENY Condfflonat Use Permit 11 -14 and Adopt Resolution No. 2012-IZ 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 8712 VALLEY BOULEVARD N THE C-31) (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN: 5398-016839) Exeuft Dsedwrity AlionagerA8led gave a brief summery of The staff report Assistant PfannertBy Tdnh explained that on January 17 the Rosemead Planning Coaanission conducted a pgbtic hearing for Cond lional Use Permit 11 -14 to request a new Type 41 beer and wine license in conjunction with a bonafde 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 submfkd a letter to the City Clerks Office appealing the Commission's decision. The Commission denied the permit due to the following reasons Allier a site inspection was conducled by the Planning Division, the Chief of Police, and Code Enforcement R was revealed that the floor plan submitted is a misrepresentation of The anent restaurant layout The front eating area's well IR and is consistent with a family restaurant atmosphere; however, the rear dining area is configured as a hostess bar selling with dim fighting 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 California Alcohol License and Beverage Control's definition of a bornefide eating place. The Planning Division, the Chief of Police and Code Enforcement have tried to work with the apprmnt to modify the floor plan of the rear area into a family restaurant atmosphere; however, fire applicant indicated that he did not want to modify the floor plans. Therefore, staff is recommendirg that the City Council ODld the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Conddlonal Use Permit 11 -14 and approve Resolu6an 2012 - 12. La n Tan — Restaurant owner asked that tie city Council postpone the public hearing to try to work with staff and remodel the back portion of the restaurant. ftwmeadHouftDer kpmrdCwpvdlon and CflyCnundlJobtMeetlng WKft afFebru"14, 2011 Papa 2 riff Air. Affred stated that staff would Oka to continue the public hearing to March 27 and give the Planning Division and Public Safety sufficient tine to work with the applicant to possibly modify the near end of the building. PresideWMayor Lyopened Me Public Hearing of 7:15 p.m.; there being no comments PresldsnWgorLy co AhW fire Public Hearing to the March 27, 2012 City Coundtneeting. DeectorlCounw'I Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by DlreetodCouncil Member William Alarcon, to continue the Public Hearing on March M. Vote resulted in: Yea: Alarcon, Armenia, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None A. Public Hearing on the Fiscal Yesr2012 -13 Action Plan for Federally- Funded Programs The City Council will conduct its required annual pubic hearing regarding the projected use of federal Community Development Black Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership CHOMP 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 oommuniiies; however, cities have beer warned that Congress vn71 make severe cuts to these programs — an expected 35.6% In Rosemead's CDBG allocation end 25% decrease in HOME funds. The drastic funding reduction to the CDBG program will result in reduced funding for the CIVs Senior Nutrition Lunch program currently operated at the Garvey Community Center and the Rosemead Community Reareafion Center. Due to the funding reducions, it may be necessary to consotdade 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 anent recipients, which include the Family Counseling Services, People for People, Rosemead High School, Rosemead School Disbict, Souther Catdonda Housing Rights Center, The Whole Chid, and YMCA of (Nest San Gabriel Valley. In addition, proposals have also been submilled by Family Promise and Mentally and Educationally Retarded Citizens, Inc. (Mercl). Due to the impending federal hmding 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 tesfimony on Annual Action Plan covering the period July 1, 2012 —June 30, 2013. No further City Council action is necessary. Acting Community Development DirectorHiheie Ramirez mylewed the staff report Rusmad Homy Dew#mmt C&Mrdion and C11yCWnd Meeting Mreetes dFMnWy 14, 2011 Page 3of 11 PmddenL4J*w Ly opened the Puhrrc Hearing at 7:20 p.m George Nallech — Representative of Santa Anita Family Services explained that CDGB funds received are used to offer family counseling and a variety of other services in Rosemead families, John Lovato — Representative of the Rosemead School D'ishict stated that the CDGB funding helps b provide parents and students with parenting classes, conflict resolution, and educating parents and students to raise achievements. Ron Fsgutvel — Representative of the Rosemead School District stated that attendance of diverse families in the parenting classes have increased end thanked the City Council for supporting the program. Norene Rand Director of People far People thanked the City Council for thercontinued support and funding which has provided two part -time employees and services far over 75 Rosemead females. Holly a — Representative of People for People thanked the City Council for their support and the City assistance during Chdshmas season that helped many families. Leonot Ortega — Representative of the Housing Rights Center staled thatlheir program provides many services to landlords and tenants in the City of Rosemead. Charlene Olmas Pelnado Chief Executive CKfucer of the Whole Child program stated they provide homeless family services to families that reed housing assistance. _Martha Escanuelas — Representatire of Mentally and Educationally Retarded Citizens, Inc., thanked City Council for considering their appliicaft for CDGE funding and added that they provide services to multi- handicap, nor- verbal patients to Improve their quality of tile. PreslderrllhlaywLy closed fie Public Headng at 7:37 p.m. No further action was required at this time. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Demands e Resolution Nil 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 $1,775,235.64 NUMBERED 11677 THROUGH 11681 INCLUSIVELY Rosemead Hauahg Deveblanerg Cnrpwatim and ClyCrwndl Joad Meeting MhWworFa&wy14, 2011 Page 4 or i1 • Resolution 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. ZD12 —13 entided: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CRY OF' ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,916,317.63 NUMBERED 71277 THROUGH M55 INCLUSIVELY B. Installation of Full Capture Trash System in Catch Basins Projects —Award of Contract As pad of the City's Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved the'Insiallation of Full Capture Trash Systems in Catch Basins Project', which consists of retrofitting shdy -one (61) of the Citys 661 stommtDr catch basins with trash capture devices to prevent infiltration of trash from the atonn water system lo the waterways. The retrofit of these sixty -one basins is the fast phase In retrofitting 20 catch basins by October 2016 in compliance with the LA River Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and water quafdy permit mandates. Recommendation, That the City Council• 1. Approve the plans and specifications for the project and 2. Authadze the City Manager tD enter into a contract whh Time Structure In the amotnd of $26,960.00 and establish an amount of $4,000 (approximately 15%) to cover the cost of urdoeseen construction expenses. Juan Nunez — asked If gardeners are required to obtain permits because of the concern of blowing trash on the street. Pnesiftn6yor Ly explained that the unfunded mandate is from the Environmental Protection Agency, which requires cities to capture the incoming water from storm drains. Director of Public t1lorlrs ANarcarello stated that the catch basins are to regulate trash being dumped in storm drains. Rosemaed Housing Dentopment Wporeffw and Cly OotindJolrt Uaft Mkdes ofFeinairy f4, 2011 Page 5er11 DirecforACounca Member Clark expressed concern that the catch basins may have unintended consequences and clog the storm drains. Ekecutiue DbedovCly Abnager ARW explained that the cost to instal the storm drains will be 0,000. C. Approval of Parcel Map No. 71253 — 3939 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. Recomrneadation: That the City Council approve Parcel Map No. 71253 and d'aed the City Clerk to arrange for the recordation tithe map. D. RlghttoRWsy CertFication for Federally- Funded Projects As part of the City's 2011 -12 Capital Improvement Program budget the City Council approved a program titled UlmanfSan Gabriel Intersection Improvements', which consists of the construction of concrete Intersection, traffic signed upgrade and appurtenances at the Intersection of Hellman Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard. This project Is werally -hmded through the Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA) and Cardomla Department of Transportation (Cahrans). Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolu ion No. 2012 -11, edled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORONG THE CITY MANAGER, OR THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC ,WORKS, TO EXECUTE RIGHT-0F WAY CERTIFICATIONS FOR FEDERALLY-FUNDED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS 1NfrH 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 (101)) are made In conjunction with private Improvements projects and map subdivisions, csualy as a condifian of approval related to a project. 1013s represent a portion of landheal property that is dedicated by a property ownerto the City for a public purpose (such as tht-0f -way enharrcernent, 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 ofthe City. Such delegation will streamine efforts for processing these Items. Rw meadHsusing Derebpmaof Owporahav and CWCemE§ dobdMe*W M19Ww orFhbremy 14, Ali Paceour Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2012 -02, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSF.MEAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO ACCEPT IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION F. SkIlm -milk, Curb and Gutter Replacement Project— Award of Contract As part of the City's Fiscal Year2011 -12 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved the 'Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Replacement Prow, 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 surxessful bid received was lower than anticipated and budgeted. it is theretore 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 Cky'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 amcont be allocated to this construction project. The contingency amount is within the limits established In the City Purchasing Policy and will be used to cover unforeseen construction expenses and the installation of additional repair locations. Recommandatthn: That the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Replacernerd Project 2. Authorize the City Manager to ender Into a contract with Konnx, Inc, for the Sidew* . Crab and Gutter Replacement Project in the amount of $142,057. In addM n, authoae 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 action on December 5, 2011, as a result of conditions of exkerne 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. 201214, enZW: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, PROCLAIMING TERMINATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY f awmadHmahgDevelopmentcawpraAM andaYCoundJard Maidog htinuk oflefauary 14.2011 Prga7of11 Vice- PresidentlMayor Pro Tam Sandra Amrenta made a motion, seconded by DirectodCouncil Member Polly Low, to approve Conaerd Calendar items. Vote resulted it: Yes: Alarcon, Armenia, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent None 5. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Mid -Year Budget Update The City Council will be pmvkied with a FY 201142 mid -year budget update presentation along with a brief economic look towards the upcoming fiscal year. The recently updated Strategic Plan identifies key goals and objectives to ensure long -term fiscal sust&nahlllty and staff has been working to ensure thatihow are met. However, recent actions taken by State lawmakers In eliminate redevelopment have caused immediate adverse impacts on the stability of the City's current fiscal year and beyond. At this lime, efforts are being made to mitigate the need to draw from the General Fund reserve balance at a rate of appnndmately $1 D0,000 per month in order to maintain existing service levels. Aside from the Imparts of the deficits created by the Stale, the General Fund revenues have proven to be stable and are generally in Ise with budget projections, Assessed property values are exported to moderately increase this year, sales tax revenue is projected to meet budget expectations and most other revenues have not varied signifrcanlly from budget estimates. Recommendation: Thatthe City Council approve receive and fide the mid -year update. finance Dkedor t3rkeo myWed the staff repot and presented a bnef PbwePbfntXmn1aft Path rf presentation is avadabte in the City Clertr's office far public view. Executive DiredorAAred reft'ated that the City Council previously adapted five principles as part of the Gtys annual budget and strategic plan to help approach and maintain r sponsibdity to the community and oversee finencial responsibilities. Finance Director Brisco explained that the legislation also passed Senate Bin 89, which eliminated Vehicle License Fees; these are fees that cities collected, resulting in a $2D4,000 short fall. Presfdent/Mayor Ly asked If the League of Cafifomia Cities was taking action regarding the elimination of Vehicle License Fees, which violates Proposition 22 Assistant CltytAanegerHawkesworth stated that a joint lawsuit between the League of California Cifies and some cities have filed preliminary filings against SB89. . Rmwad Housing Dembprnwrf Owpord w aad M OmmolJofntA oft 110 dw ufFabnery 14,1011 Page 8of11 Finance Dk6ctorBdwo continued with pieserdaliaon and added that the current general fund expenditures vAl cover the remaining redevelopment agency's cost left of $500,000. Mr. Bdsce 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 binds that can be used for other projects. With the dissolution of redevelopment came the elimination of low- modendB income housing funds; however, with Setal a BE 654, 1 will help preserve some of the housing money but will not came into effect until January 2011 DheckdCoundf Member Clark rifted 1SB654 had beer approved and signed by the Govemor. PresfdenWayor t y clarified that SS654 was passed by the legislators and the bill is considered a non - urgency bill; therefore, will not take effed until 2013. Assisted C ly Manager Hawkasworlh explained that Assembly Bill 1585 had not been approved which contains the urgency language that resulted In removing the urgency language from SB654. He added that the bill supports low income and only secures the existing fund balance and does not authorize any new funding. Finance DUsdorBr►sso 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, tirrot traveling and meeting expenses, update fee schedules, and seek highest yield investments. DirectodCouneil Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Vice-PresiderNMayor Pro Tom Sandra Armente, to receive and file the midyear budget update. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: Norio Abstain: None Absent None 8. MATTERS FROM MAYOR S CfiY COUNCIL A. Oversight Board Appointments The City Council will consider the appointment of two individuals to serve on the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency of the fommer 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: Thad the Cdy Council provide direction or take action as it deems appropriate. Executive DkedaYCilly Manager Allred reviewed the sWreport Roswood Houft Deuebprrerd CaTwOon and pry GbunoGbad Afeeft Afimft erFeftmy 14, 2011 Ptge9or11 City Councu nominated Coy ManagerAlhed as a board mwdwfo Ste OtersfgNGomm)ltee. D meWCouncli Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Mce•Presidentmayor Pro Tom Sandra Armenia, to appoint City Manager Allred to the Oversight Committee. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenia, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None City Council nominated Admanistrative Assistant Martin Jones as a board member to the Oversight CommiBea. DlrectodCounell MemberYlfilBam Alarcon made a motion, seconded by DirectorlCouncli Member Margaret Clark, to appoint Administrative Assistant Martin Jones to the Oversight Committee. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, dark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent None DirectorMounc7 AlamberClark asked for the meeting to adjourn in memory of Xavier Qulntanilla, who passed away. PresidentllAayor Ly explained that sic years ago this month his falherwas diagnosed with cancer and lost his battle a yam 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 Lite, Which the City of Rosemead.participates in every year. He urged the public to log Into the weWde to donate to this cause and participate in the City's Relay for We event to be held on June 9a. Pmsidenf/Mayor Ly adjourned the Horsing Development Cwporallwr and City Coundd meeting to closed session at 8. .08 p m. 7. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel — Potential Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9 (by t matter ' The Housing Devalopment Corpora8on and City Coundrecomened bWtDm dosed session with no Wrtable actions at 8:24pm. Rowrread Houahg Deyebgna t Corporation and CRy Cm adW Me*w Mina►es GfRb=0F 1A 2011 Page 10 or 11 B. ADJOURNMENT The meallng adjourned in memory of Y.-Mer 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. r ATTEST. _r • ... 1 RosemeadhtLnvDev *WentCerpwdm and CdyyCmcl JON Af ft AftilmafRWary 14, 2011 ftp 11 of 11 STATE OF CALIFORMA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Gloria Moleda, City Clerk for the Rosemead City, do hereby certify that the meeting dnules from February %2012, were duly and regularly approved and adopted bythe Rosemead City Council on the 13+^ of March 2012, by the follovdng vote to Y& Yes: Alarcon, Annenta, Clark, Low, Ly. No: None AbsW: None Absent: None —' � . Glda 1 eda ... Cdy Clerk HUNAN SEAFOOD RESTAURANT 8772 Valley Blvd Rosemead, CA91770 March 6, 2012 City of Rosemead Planning & Community Development ATTN: Lily Trinh 8838 R Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 Dear Ms Trinh: Recehr ,i by Date 3 4r I_ 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 c gineer 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. For your records I have engaged the services ofMr. 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-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 "DI 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 KE CITY COLWCLAGENDA 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 establishmeK 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 tenants intention of operating a restaurant in the front portion of the building and operating the near 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 performanbe 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 c � ,Q�s I�I- / Pr � e ,► p � a / red by: V Z4- - *`7�O U yl� Sheri Bermejo Michelle Ramirez City Planner Acting Community Development Director Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 17, 2012 Attachment B: Planning Commisslon 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 Richman, Assistant.City Manager Hawkesworth, Acting Community Development Director Ramirez, Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Cleric 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. Nufiez also asked if seniors pay for their lunches at the community centers. He suggested that seniors should pay 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 10 ATTACHMENT 661" Ron Esguivet — 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. Esquivel also thanked City staff for being responsive and removing a damaged tree from of his property. 3. PRESENTATIONS • Earthquake Preparedness Month Proclamation Mayor Ly read the proclamation and declared the month of April as Earthquake Preparedness Month. Public Safety Coordinator Mandy Wong 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 Tom Carina Lieu — representative of Congresswoman Judy Chu's office presented a congressional recognition certificates to outgoing Mayor Steven Ly and outgoing Mayor Pro Tom Sandra Armenta. Olive Lee — representative of Assembly Members Mike Eng's office presented certificates of congratulations to outgoing Mayor Steven Ly and outgoing Mayor Pro Tom 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 Tom Sandra Armenta for their dedication. Ron Esquivel — representative of the Rosemead School District presented a certificate of appreciation to outgoing Mayor Steven Ly and outgoing Mayor Pro Tom Sandra Armenta for their service to the City and dedication to public education. Bob Bruesch — representative of the Garvey School District congratulated outgoing Mayor Steven Ly and outgoing Mayor Pro Tom 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 Tom 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 10 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. 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 Tom Sandra Armenta, to continue the public hearing for the appeal of CUP 11 -14 to June 12, 2012. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Mayor Pro Tom Armenta announced that a certificate of recognition was received from the Alhambra Unified School Distdct 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 Karacke 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 10 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 to Melody 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 agreement to 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 10 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 like 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 consistent 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 Tem Sandra Annenta, to approve Consent Calendar items. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, 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 of the two Senior Nutrition Lunch programs into a single location will be necessary. In Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 5 of 10 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 C unseling Services Family Promises (Homeless Services Merci Housin 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 SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET AND REQUESTS 2011 -12 Approved Budget $ 39,000 40,000 $ 10,000 $ $ 27,345 $ 10,000 $ 7,000 $ 77,824 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 171,169.00 ----- ----- -- -- --- -- ----- --- -- - - --- -- --- ---- -------- -- - - - --- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- 15% Cap 1 $ 155,649.00 $ 102,338.00 $ 102,338.00 Anticipated Program $ 15,520.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00 i - -- - - -- ----------------- + TOTAL 50CIAL SERVICE CAP i $ 177,169.00 ; $._________ 111,338.00 i $ 111,338.00 -------------------------- -- ---- - - - - -- - — --- -- - - -• • ----- -- - - - - -- - 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. 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 Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 6 of 10 2012 -13 Request $ 40,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 27,345 $ 10,000 $ 7,000 $ 93,010 $ 8,000 $ 5,000 $ 205,355,00 ----- ----- -- -- --- -- ----- --- -- - - --- -- --- ---- -------- -- - - - --- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- 15% Cap 1 $ 155,649.00 $ 102,338.00 $ 102,338.00 Anticipated Program $ 15,520.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00 i - -- - - -- ----------------- + TOTAL 50CIAL SERVICE CAP i $ 177,169.00 ; $._________ 111,338.00 i $ 111,338.00 -------------------------- -- ---- - - - - -- - — --- -- - - -• • ----- -- - - - - -- - 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. 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 Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 6 of 10 2012 -13 Recommended Budget $ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 7,328 $ - $ 93,010* $ $ 111,338.00 ----- ----- -- -- --- -- ----- --- -- - - --- -- --- ---- -------- -- - - - --- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- 15% Cap 1 $ 155,649.00 $ 102,338.00 $ 102,338.00 Anticipated Program $ 15,520.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00 i - -- - - -- ----------------- + TOTAL 50CIAL SERVICE CAP i $ 177,169.00 ; $._________ 111,338.00 i $ 111,338.00 -------------------------- -- ---- - - - - -- - — --- -- - - -• • ----- -- - - - - -- - 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. 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 Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 6 of 10 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 Michelle 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. Mrs. Ramirez replied that the city's general fund would have to make up to difference in cost. City Manager Jeff 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. Mrs. Ramirez replied that with the current amount being allocated, the senior nutrition program would have to be consolidated into one community center. She further 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 of $108,670 by the city's general fund. Council Member Clark asked what services are required by the CDBG program to be funded. Mrs. Ramirez explained that the U.S Urban Housing and Development highly recommend funding of any social service to assist low 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. Mrs. Ramirez replied that the money currently being collected from the senior lunches is a donation only and not a required payment. Mayor Lyasked how much money is collected with senior luncheon donations. Mrs. 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. Council Member Low suggested allocating money to the YMCA, who provides homeless services. Mayor Pro Tom Armenta asked if the allocated amount to homeless services could be divided among Family Promises and the YMCA. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 7 of 10 Mrs. 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 Tom Armenta suggested dividing other allocated amounts for Family Counseling and allocate $3,000 to the Rosemead School District. MayorLyasked Mrs. Ramirez to explain why $6,000 was recommended for Family Counseling and nothing for the Rosemead School District. Mrs. Ramirez explained that criteria is to service low to moderate income households and Family Counseling provides services to everyone including parents and children in the City of Rosemead. She 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. Mrs. 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 Escruivel - explained 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 Bruesch - suggested contacting Habitat for Humanity to aid in some services and the City may waive fees as in -kind services towards HUD money, which may free up for other services. Mrs. 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 Tom Armenta asked if Rosemead High School could not operate with just $1,000 could that money go back to the Rosemead School District. Mrs. 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 allocating $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 Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 8 of 10 Council Member Clarkexplained 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 10th City Council meeting because she will be out of town. Mrs. Clark 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. Council Member Low thanked outgoing Mayor Steven Ly for his service as Mayor. Mayor Pro Tom Armenta stated that Mr. Ly was bom for the Mayor position and she was really proud of him for making the council cohesive and for accomplishing so many projects under his Mayorship. Council MemberAlarcon congratulated outgoing Mayor Steven Ly on his service as Mayor. 8. CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION This is the time for the Council to reorganize by appointing a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, respectively for one -year terms. A. Appointment of Mayor— City Clerk Presiding City Clerk Gloria Molleda announced that it was appropriate to take nominations for City Mayor at this time. Council Member William Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to nominate Sandra Armenta as the next City Mayor. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None B. Appointment of Mayor Pro Tom — Newly appointed Mayor Presiding Mayor Annenta asked for Mayor Pro Tern nominations. Council Member Margaret Clark made a motion, seconded by Council Member Steven Ly, to nominate Polly Low as Mayor Pro Tem. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 9 of 10 Abstain: None Absent: None City Council presented a certificate of recognition to outgoing Mayor Steven Ly for his outstanding services. 9. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9 (a): Cal Poultry v. City of Rosemead Case No. USDC CV12.02409 B. Conference with Legal Counsel — Potential Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) 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 Rachel Richman stated 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 stating Mayor Pro Tem Polly Low made a motion, seconded Council Member William Alarcon, to directed the law firm of Burke, Williams and Sorenson, LLP to represent the City in the Cal Poultry v. City of Rosemead case with a 510 vote. 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. psi �i Sandra Armenta Mayor ATTEST: A1 6,04 qL�LL loria Molleda City Clerk Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2011 Page 10 of 10 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 March 27, 2012, were duly and regularly approved and adopted by the Rosemead City Council on the 12th of June 2012, by the following vote to wit: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Gloria Molleda City Clerk HUNAN SEAFOOD RESTAURANT 8772 Valley Blvd Rosemead, CA 91770 May 17, 2012 City of Rosemead Planning & Community Development ATTN: Lily Trinh 8838 E. Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 Dear Ms Trinh: 0 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. < is .,.. 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,$om 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. C Sincerely, _'5� °on Tony Tan Owner ATTACHMENT "J" ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER 40 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'J, requesting an additional extension of 30 days to work with his consultant and engineer to make necessary revisions to the floor plan. APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: ATTACHMENT «K" 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, t} that the proposed floor plan we Although the submitted floor plan actual set -up of the rear of the e not permitted use in the City. e Planning Commission denied CUP 11 -14 on the basis s a misrepresentation of the current restaurant layout. resembled dining area throughout the establishment, the ,tablishment resembled a hostess bar. A hostess bar is 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 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 HUNAN SEAFOOD RESTAURANT 8772 Valley Blvd Rosemead, CA 91770 July 16, 2012 City of Rosemead Planning & Community Development ATTN: Lily Trinh 8838 E. Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 Dear Ms Trinh: I would like to request an additional extension of 90 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 Sheriffs Department and I have recently engaged the services of a consultant Michael Lewis, 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 architect to make the necessary revisions to the plans and submit them with adequate time for staff review. I was called out of the country unexpectedly six weeks ago and have been unable to communicate with my consultants despite their repeated attempts to reach me. I just returned on July 14th. 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 V Owner ATTACHMENT "L" ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER 1P. DATE: JULY 24, 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 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" 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. The City Council unanimously approved his request ATTACHMENT "M" City Council Report July 24, 2012 Page 2 of 3 on June12th and extended the public hearing to the July 24 City Council meeting. The City Council staff report is included in this report as Attachment "K ". On July 17, 2012, staff received another extension letter from the applicant (Attachment "L "), requesting an additional 90 days extension to work with his consultant and newly hired architect to make necessary revisions to the floor plan. In his letter, he states that he was unexpectedly called out of the country six weeks ago and was unable to communicate with his consultant. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council CONTINUE the public hearing for the appeal of CUP 11 -14 to October 30, 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. 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. A few months ago, staff from the Community Development Department and Public Safety Department staff completed site inspections of the Hunan Restaurant with Mr. Tan and his consultant. During these meetings, staff provided Mr. Tan and his consultant with recommendations for interior floor plan modifications to make the rear portion of the building consistent with a restaurant establishment. Since the extension request was approved on June 12 staff did not hear from Mr. Tan. On July 16 Mr. Tan visited the Planning Counter and stated that he will have his consultant request another extension for the appeal. To date, staff has not received a revised floor plan. 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. City Council Report July 24, 2012 Page 3 of 3 PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Prepared by: `" J —'a Lily Trinh Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: Prepared by: L Vnup- 9.&M Michelle Ramirez 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: City Council Meeting Minutes, dated March 27, 2012 Attachment J: Letter requesting a 30 -day extension from Lan (Tony) Tan, dated May 17, 2012 Attachment K: City Council Staff Report, dated June 12, 2012 Attachment L: Letter requesting a second 90 -day extension from Lan (Tony) Tan, dated July 16, 2012 MAYOR: SANDRA ARMENTA MAYOR PRO TEM: POLLY LOW COUNCIL MEMBERS: BILL ALARCON MAROARETCLARK STEVEN LY October 23, 2012 Lan Khanh Tan (Tony Tan) 8772 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 OSOODcad 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX 399 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 569 -2100 FAX (626) 307 -9218 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 -14 (HUNAN SEAFOOD RESTAURANT) 8772 VALLEY BOULEVARD Dear Applicant: This letter is being sent to notify you of the current status of your Conditional Use Permit application. As discussed in our meeting on February 22, 2012, the floor plan and furnishings of the rear portion of the building shall be modified to be consistent with a "family restaurant" atmosphere. After a careful review of the revised floor plan, which was submitted on October 2, 2012, the City of Rosemead Planning Division and Public Safety Department still finds inconsistency in the floor plan. Please make the necessary corrections, which are listed below and resubmit to the City for further review: Floor Plan 1. The floor plan shall transition the front and rear dining areas to illustrate a single restaurant use. The hallways located east and west of the restrooms shall be completely open. All door jams shall be removed. 2. Since the applicant is requesting to operate a single restaurant use, the service counter located in the rear dining area shall be completely removed. 3. The revised floor plan illustrates that the applicant is removing the two -way mirror. However, Code Enforcement's recent site inspection revealed that the two -way mirror has been covered with dry wall on one side of the mirror (facing the hallway). Staff will require that all two -way mirrors be completely removed. 4. Per our meeting on February 22, 2012, the dining booths located within the rear dining area shall be modified to be consistent with a restaurant dining booth. The dining booth partition shall be lowered to a maximum height of 4' -0 ". The applicant shall also install dining tables that are consistent with the size of the dining booths. 5. At this time, staff is unable to support the approval of an Entertainment License. For this reason, please remove the dance floor, platform area, piano, and all associated entertainment systems. Once the entertainment area has been removed, additional dining tables shall be installed within the open area. ATTACHMENT "O" 6. The lighting system throughout the restaurant shall be consistent. Staff will not support the dim lighting in the rear dining area. Please note this on the plans. 7. The color of the walls shall be consistent throughout the restaurant. Please note this on the plans. Building and Safety Requirements 1. The cashier counter located within the front dining area shall be handicap accessible. 2. The revised floor plan illustrates the addition of a modesty panel in the Men's Restroom. This is inconsistent with handicap compliance. 3. Per the Building Code, the number of urinals is 11150 (CPC Table 4 -1). 4. The existing second exit (required) rear door shall swing out (direction of egress). Please feel free to contact me, at (626) 569 -2142, if you have any questions regarding this matter. Rosemead City Hall is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. City Hall is closed on Fridays. S' ere Lily Trinh Assistant Planner Cc: Case File —CUP 11 -14 Michelle Ramirez, Community Development Director Lt. Tim Murakami, Chief of Police Wayne Co, Senior Code Enforcement Officer Jim Donovan, Building Official RESOLUTION 2012 -12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF 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 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, on January 17, 2012, the Rosemead Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 and adopted Resolution 12 -01, making findings and determinations with regard to the denial; WHEREAS, on January 19, 2012, Lan Tan filed an appeal to the City Clerk's office, requesting to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. 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 the 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 ATTACHMENT "P" 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 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 17.124.070 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve, disapprove, or modify the decision of the Planning Commission, and its decision shall be final on applications; WHEREAS, on February 2, 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, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 APPEAL, and on February 3, 2012, the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2012, the City Council continued the duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional use Permit 11 -14 APPEAL; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2012, the City Council continued the duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional use Permit 11 -14 APPEAL; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2012, the City Council continued the duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional use Permit 11 -14 APPEAL; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2012, the City Council continued the duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional use Permit 11 -14 APPEAL; and 2 WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1 . The City Council HEREBY DETERMINES that Conditional Use Permit 11 -14 is Categorically Exempt from environmental review as a Class 9Exemption pursuant to Section 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. SECTION 2 . The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify UPHOLDING the Planning Commission's decision to deny 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 -31D (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. FINDING: 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 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 3 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. Finally, the property owner has withdrawn its support of the application based on the foregoing, stating its belief that the proposed operation is not within the owner's contemplation of the proper uses for the 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 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 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. Finally, the property owner has withdrawn its support of the application based on the foregoing, stating its belief that the proposed operation is not within the owner's contemplation of the proper uses for the site. 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. 12 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 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 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, 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. 5 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 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. 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. SECTION 3 . The City Council HEREBY UPHOLDS the Planning Commission's decision to deny Conditional Use Permit 11 -14, as approved and adopted by the Planning Commission on January 17, 2012. SECTION 4 . This resolution is the result of an action taken by the City Council on November 13, 2012, by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: SECTION 6 . The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant, the appellant and the Rosemead Planning Division. R PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13 day of November, 2012. Sandra Armenta, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney rIA CERTIFICATION f I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead at a meeting held on the 13th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk 0