Loading...
PC - Minutes - 06-19-17 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 19,2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Lopez in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Commissioner Eng INVOCATION-Commissioner Herrera ROLL CALL-Commissioners Eng, Herrera,Tang,Vice-Chair Dang and Chair Lopez STAFF PRESENT - City Attorney Thuyen, Community Development Director Ramirez, City Planner Valenzuela,Associate Planner Hanh,Assistant Planner Lao,and Administrative Assistant Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DESIGN REVIEW 17-03 - James Pham has submitted a Design Review application to construct a new two-story single-family dwelling unit with 3,547 square feet of floor area at 3058 Jackson Avenue(APN: 5286-023-025). Any new dwelling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of developed living area shall be subject to a Discretionary Site Plan and Design Review.The project site is located in a Light Multiple Residential(R-2)zone. PC RESOLUTION 17-12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 17- 03, PERMITTING A NEW 3,547 SQUARE FEET SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT WITH AN ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3058 JACKSON AVENUE (APN: 5286-023- 025), IN THE LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL(R-2)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17- 12 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 17-03,subject to the 31 conditions. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Lopez asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng disclosed that she lives on the same block as the project that is being presented, it is within the 500 yard radius, and recused herself from this item. Commissioner Tang asked if the driveway gate is a sliding gate that opens up to the driveway or is it an angular gate. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is a sliding gate. 1 Commissioner Tang asked if it will encroach upon the walkway of the entrance or which way will it slide. Assistant Planner Lao replied she will defer that question to the architect. Chair Lopez commented it was a beautiful design and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Dat Wong referred to Commissioner Tang's question and stated the sliding gate will slide to the right and is more than 10 feet away. Commissioner Tang commented that it does not look like that in the picture but agreed if that is what the scale shows. He commented it is a beautiful design. Vice-Chair Dang commended the applicant on his nice architectural design. He added it is a nice symmetric and balanced design, applauded the applicant, and staff for working together to come up with a nice design. He asked if the rod iron fence color is black or an earth tone color. Applicant Wong replied it is brown color. Vice-Chair Dang stated it will be a color that mimics the house. Applicant Wong replied yes and it will match the eaves surrounding the house. Vice-Chair Dang stated he appreciates the fact that he took that into consideration and just not create a house but extended the architectural taste to the fences and closures. He asked if there was a block wall surrounding the home. Applicant Wong replied there is an existing block wall on the left hand side and explained the color does not match, it is gray, and does not match the rendering. He added staff has requested he change the color to earth tone colors to match the surrounding. He has agreed and will revise the plan to say it is going to be a different color. Vice-Chair Dang asked if he is suggesting that he will remove and replace the wall. Applicant Wong replied no. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the existing block wall is gray and if they are planning to paint it a matching color. Applicant Wong replied yes,that can be done also, but only on their side. Commissioner Tang asked to clarify if it will be painted to match the earth tone colors of the home. Applicant Wong nodded yes. Commissioner Tang asked if this home will be owner-occupied. Applicant Wong replied yes. 2 Chair Lopez asked if there were any further comments or questions. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions for staff. None Chair Lopez asked for a motion. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-12 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 17-03,subject to the 31 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Recuse: Eng Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Recuse vote and explained the 10-day appeal process. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02 (CONTINUED) - Steven Huynh has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to establish a card dealer school (vocational school use) at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit#B110(APN: 5371-010-805).The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing building. The project site is located in a Medium Commercial with Design Overlay (C-3/D-O) zone. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to establish the vocational school use within a Medium Commercial(C-3)zone. On May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission took no action on the Conditional Use Permit application (CUP 17-02), as the motion to deny CUP 17-02 resulted in a vote of two ayes and two noes. Since no action was taken with the initial vote, City Attorney Murphy explained two options to the Planning Commission: [1] continue this matter to a future Planning Commission Meeting where five Planning Commissioners are present or [2] continue to discuss the matter. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue this matter to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 19,2017. PC RESOLUTION 17-10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02,PERMITTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOCATIONAL SCHOOL USE AT 8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD, UNIT#B110(APN: 5371-010-805), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (C-3/D-0)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17- 10 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 17-02, subject to the 31 conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. 3 Chair Lopez asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang asked what will be the name of the business. Associate Planner Hanh replied that question will have to be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Tang stated his questions are appropriate for the applicant, so he will wait for the applicant. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Steven Huynh stated he works at the Hawaiian Garden Casino as a card dealer and has been in this casino for thirty-something years. He stated he has a lot of experience with casinos and opened a school in Westminster, which has been open for 6 months. He stated he has not had any problems with the City and has done whatever they have requested to get permission to open. He said 6 of his students have obtained employment at Hallow Park and Hawaiian Gardens. He stated that he did not know that every City has different hearings, explained what the City of Westminster required, and he had asked Associate Planner Hanh if it would be allowed that he speak at the hearing. He added that there are a lot of people that live in Monterey Park and Rosemead that work at the casino in the City of Commerce. He stated that he is trying to create opportunities for employment, he is not promoting gambling,and tells his students they should not gamble,but they can make money by being a card dealer, and that is why he wants to open a school. He stated most card dealers have attended schools,the City of El Monte has 2 schools and the City of Monterey Park has 1 school, and that is why he is trying to open a school in this City. He stated he has come to the City of Rosemead and spoke with Associate Planner Hanh quite often and has told him he will do whatever the City would like him to do to get his license for his school. He added that he would like to get a business started, provide opportunities for jobs, and keep himself busy. He stated he would like the opportunity to do something for the City because there are so many casinos and the City that he currently has a business in does not have any concerns. He presented a reference letter from Kathy Buchoz, a Business Consultant, for the Planning Commission to read. He reiterated that he has been open for 6 months and there have not been any problems or complaints. Community Development Director Ramirez requested that the applicant give the letter to the Administrative Assistant so the Planning Commission may read it. Chair Lopez asked if there were any questions or comments for the applicant. Commissioner Tang asked what the name of his business is. Applicant Huynh replied "Dealer School". He explained in the City of Bolsa where he currently has a business inside the store it is "Bolsa Dealer School" and if he opens a dealer school in Rosemead, then he will put "Rosemead Dealer School". Commissioner Tang asked if the sign in front of his business will state"Rosemead Dealer School". Applicant Huynh replied no, it will be just "Dealer School" because that is what his license states. He stated just inside the business he will put Rosemead. Commissioner Tang asked who will be training the students. 4 Applicant Huynh replied he will be. Commissioner Tang asked it there will be any other hired instructors helping him. Applicant Huynh replied yes, there are two classes(one in the morning and one in the afternoon), and is planning to have a co-worker to help him teach. Commissioner Tang asked if the school is another business in addition to his job. Applicant Huynh replied yes, it is a business related to his job because he is a dealer, he knows a lot of people, and he works at the casino. He stated that he has 30 years'experience, he sees the game every day, knows the rules, he tries to teach his students not to gamble, and if they gamble they will not win. He stated it is a good job for them, to go to school,and learn to become a dealer to make money. Commissioner Tang asked if this business will have 1 instructor and up to 10 students. Applicant Huynh replied yes. Commissioner Tang asked how long the classes are. Applicant Huynh replied he teaches very fast and takes about 2 months. He explained the first month he teaches all the policies because every casino has different policies and rules. He stated he teaches the general policy first for different casinos and when his students go for auditions he will teach the students the different rules of that casino, how they deal the cards, and their procedures. Commissioner Tang asked if the students go to this school full-time or how many days do they attend within a week. Applicant Huynh replied it depends because some students have jobs, so they may only come 2 days a week and it will take a little longer. He added if the student does not have a job, then they are able to come 5 days a week and get through faster. Chair Lopez clarified that Commissioner Tang is asking if the class is an 8-hour class day or a 5-hour class day. Applicant Huynh replied it is a 4-hour class,the first one is in the morning beginning at 11:00 am to 3:00 pm, and there is another 4-hour class in the afternoon from 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm. He added it will take about 2 months if they attend every day. Chair Lopez asked if this class is based on how often the student can attend, so it may take some students two months if they don't work, and if they do work it may take 3 months. Applicant Huynh replied yes, it may take them a little longer, but he still charges the same. He stated he may charge less than any other school near here. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments for the applicant. None Chair Lopez called resident Brian Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin stated the applicant mentions that gambling is bad and yet he wants to open a school teaching gambling in the City of Rosemead, which has never allowed gambling or casino's to his knowledge. He added the 5 applicant's comments underscore the fact that this school clearly fails the public health,safety in general,and welfare test. He expressed this is something that is not needed in the community. He added that gambling affects poor communities and there is a fair amount of lower income families in this community. He stated promoting gambling is not a direction the City should be going in and having a school in a shopping center, in the middle of the City, is promoting gambling. He requested that the Planning Commission consider this application and reject it. Chair Lopez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing. He commented that what he is hearing is that the City does not want a class. He stated that this is not gambling,the applicant is going to teach students how to work,and learn a trade like anyone wanting to go to school. He added he is not here to judge if it is needed in the City, he is here to judge the fact of what brings revenue into the City. He reiterated the applicant is not bringing in gambling, he is bringing in a classroom to teach, and, in that teaching, he is getting people work. He commented that is the basis of what this application is and what needs to be considered. He added that this needs to be looked at as a class only because that is all that it is. Commissioner Tang stated he did not see any limitations on advertising in the conditions of approval. He asked if the applicant's business can advertise images or advertisements that are associated with gambling. Associate Planner Hanh read Condition of Approval number 24, and replied no, they will not be able to. Commissioner Tang asked if that definition broadly defines that it is not allowable. Associate Planner Hanh replied the condition of approval can be broadened with the assistance of the City Attorney, if the Planning Commission wishes. City Attorney Thuyen stated the condition of approval can be modified. The way he understands it is that this condition is geared towards making sure there is no promotions or advertisements that allows this business to be seen as a casino or a place where gambling takes place. He asked Commissioner Tang to articulate what other potential issues he sees that they may use to modify this condition. Commissioner Tang recommended that it include: "as a casino place where wagering takes place or gambling may occur". City Attorney Thuyen replied that condition can be modified accordingly. Commissioner Tang stated the City Attorney can come up with the exact language and asked if that can just be inserted. City Attorney Thuyen replied yes, and recommended if there are anticipations to several modifications to the conditions it may be best to have a discussion first, as to which conditions to modify. He added then there will be a consensus integrated into one motion as to oppose to having several motions be entertained. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were other conditions of approval that need to be modified. Vice-Chair Dang stated he would like to echo his comments from the last Planning Commission meeting and thanked the applicant for bringing business to the City of Rosemead. He added he also supports Chair Lopez's comment about this just being a business and not really a promotion of gambling. He stated Mr. Huynh is a business person and this is a business opportunity to teach a class. He stated his concern is the location of this school being in a 6 strip/retail center, where there are shops, restaurants, families having dinner,and walking around looking into the shops. He stated this school (by condition of approval) will not be able to obstruct their windows, where patrons can look and see what is happening inside this school. He stated it seems out of sorts that you will see adults,tables, chips, cards being dealt, and a sign that restricts that no one under 21 allowed. He stated for a family strolling through it is not fostering an image that the City of Rosemead is particulady proud of. He expressed that the school is in the wrong location and he has no reservation on the school itself. He stated, for example, if this school was located in a building on its own parcel of land, where no family or people are strolling through that area, and in that case they could conduct their business as will, and no one would really mind. He added it is not really the business itself that he has reservations for, it is just the location, and the fact that the windows cannot be obscured, and you have an activity that does not foster the City image. Commissioner Tang stated he was not present at the Planning Commission meeting the first time this was presented,which ended in a tied vote. He added he read through the previous minutes and he agrees with Chair Lopez's comments that this application is not promoting gambling, it is about the promotion of jobs. He stated any type of resource, support, that can help families learn a skill or craft, and to achieve sustainable jobs to support their families is a good thing. He added that he also agrees with Vice-Chair Dang assessment that this is a family shopping center and there is an image that displays that is not part of the fabric of what they are trying to identify in this shopping center. He added this is not what the City is trying to achieve in terms of attracting businesses to make it a vibrant place for families to visit, eat, shop, and play. He apologized to the City Attorney for requesting that Condition of Approval number 24 be modified and stated he is going to vote against this item. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Lopez requested a motion. Vice-Chair Dang requested assistance from the City Attorney on how the motion shall be presented. Community Development Director Ramirez stated if the Planning Commission wishes to Deny this item, then it would be with a Resolution recommending a Denial to the next Planning Commission meeting, because the recommendation on this agenda item is for a Resolution for an Approval. City Attorney Thuyen stated if the Planning Commission is going to move for a motion that is different from staff's recommendation, it would be to make a motion to Deny and direct staff to bring back a resolution for Denial at the next Planning Commission meeting. He added the discussion reflects that the Planning Commission would not be able to make a finding under: Finding A)of the resolution which addresses the category of whether or not the approval of the application will not be incompatible or injurious to other properties or land uses in the vicinity or create conditions that are materially detrimental to the public health,safety, or general welfare of that category finding. Commissioner Eng stated her views and comments for this application has not changed since the last Planning Commission meeting held on Monday, May 15, 2017. She added she does agree with Vice-Chair Dang's and Commissioner Tang that this is a school, but it is not the appropriate fit for center. Commissioner Tang asked if the motion would be to Deny. City Attorney Thuyen replied yes, the motion would be to move for Denial of this application and to direct staff to bring back a Resolution for Denial at the next Planning Commission meeting. Associate Planner Hanh requested clarification of finding "A". 7 City Attorney Thuyen stated for this application the category finding is: "The Planning Commission cannot make the finding that it is not incompatible, not injurious to other properties, it will not create conditions or materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and general welfare". He added the reasons are based on the comments that had been addressed in the last Planning Commission meeting minutes and with it being a use that is not or might not be appropriate with this particular shopping center. He stated it is not a enumerated use in the zoning code and they cannot make these findings because of the potential impacts they see based on community character and the community values. He stated those are his reasons for the findings that have been made and recommended the Planning Commission may add their thoughts to get a more complete set of findings. Planning Commissioner Tang agreed to the findings. Associate Planner Hanh stated for clarification, it is because this use will have a negative impact on the community character and values. City Attorney Thuyen stated he would say it is incompatible. Commissioner Herrera stated the school is great, but the location is not, and recommended a different location. City Planner Valenzuela stated the Planning Commission has expressed that it is incompatible because this is a family shopping center and the uses established within the shopping center would not be compatible with the proposed use. Commissioner Tang replied that is correct and asked if the Planning Commissioners also agree or have any other comments. Planning Commissioner Eng stated she agrees, but her concern broadens to the general welfare, as the applicant has indicated there is a lot of desire to want to gamble. She added, as she shared in the last Planning Commission, it leads to a lot of conditions, effects relationships, families, and health. She stated after the last meeting she had spoken with some individuals that had attended a dealer school and they are usually promoted as a get quick title vocational school when in essence it is not. She stated when you are dealing with cards there is a tendency to want to try this, try your luck, and this is something that is not good for the community. She added she agrees this is not an appropriate location considering this is a family orientated shopping center. She stated she also understands this is how the applicant may want something like this because this is how you draw people in for the publicity and promotions. She stated that these schools are not inexpensive, they are an investment, and hopefully students go on and make a living. She expressed concern and commented programs need to be in place to discourage it. Chair Lopez asked how this should be motioned. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the City Attorney will have to assist because for the general welfare there is specific language that is related to that, other than just an opinion. City Attorney Thuyen stated that based on the previous minutes the issues were addressed. He added the Planning Commission is a representative of the City and they have the discretion to make the findings or whether or not there are. He stated based on this application and with the conditions of approval it is consistent and that they are able to make this finding. He added based on the Planning Commission's comments they cannot and to go ahead and articulate the issues were that having a gambling school at this location is not appropriate. He stated having a school like this especially with having the conditions of approval which based on the previous minutes where there was some discussion of whether they can have tinted windows or not to limit the view inside, discourages the original condition that would allow Code Enforcement to ensure the conditions of approval are met. He stated that this inability to also articulate and address the concern that Commissioner Dang had articulated would also be reflective on how this project would not be consistent with the community character and is not something that could be said is 8 materially detrimental to public health, safety, and general welfare. He stated that is the basis of the Planning Commission's finding. Commissioner Eng stated she disagrees with staff and does not believe she can support a finding of meeting that this application is not detrimental to the public health in general welfare. Commissioner Tang stated that when it gets to the issue of general welfare it gets into testy waters, and asked if they can agree to that this is incompatible, and not appropriate with the community character, especially for this plaza, or shopping center. Community Development Director Ramirez stated if that is the Planning Commission wishes, then they can go that route. Commissioner Tang asked the City Attorney if that is sufficient. City Attorney Thuyen replied yes, and in this category the terms have been met in this finding, based on the comments of this and the previous Planning Commission meeting,there are sufficient grounds for that. Chair Lopez asked how this motion should be made. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion would be to Deny Resolution 17-10 with findings and Conditional Use Permit 17-02 and direct staff to bring back a Resolution of Denial at the next Planning Commission meeting of July 17, 2017. Commissioner Eng made a motion,seconded by Vice-Chair Dang to Deny Resolution No. 17-10 with findings and Deny Conditional Use Permit 17-02 and to bring back a Resolution of Denial to the next Planning Commission meeting of July 17,2017. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera,and Tang Noes: Lopez Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the vote is 4 Ayes and 1 Noe to Deny this application and to bring back a Resolution of Denial at the July 17. 2017 Planning Commission meeting. She stated there is no appeal process at this time because the Resolution has not yet been adopted and this will be heard again on July 17,2017. Vice-Chair Dang requested that staff help the applicant, in the event that this does not go through, find or establish a location,where it is not a shopping center, and a more suitable location. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 6-5-17 Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera,to approve the consent calendar as presented. Vote resulted in: 9 • Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: Tang Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Abstain vote. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez gave the time, date, and location of the City of Rosemead, Fourth of July Parade, Carnival, and Firework show. She reminded the Planning Commission to RSVP to Sandy Bernica if they are participating in the Parade, so she may accommodate everyone. She announced the Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday, July 3, 2017 is cancelled and the next Planning Commission meeting will be on Monday,July 17,2017. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Chair Lopez reported that at 2020 Garret Street - the resident is stacking his empty 5 gallon drums of paint in his driveway and leaves his trash cans in the front yard. Community Development Director Ramirez replied a CRM will be made so that Code Enforcement may investigate the concern. Commissioner Eng stated this is Community Development Director Ramirez's last evening with the Planning Commission and presented a plant on behalf of the Planning Commission and thanked her for all her hard work and making their jobs meaningful. She thanked her for allowing them to be open about their constructional input. She congratulated Michelle Ramirez on her new title of Public Works Director and thanked her again for all she has done. Community Development Director Ramirez thanked the Planning Commission. She added it is the Planning Division staff that has made her job so easy. She stated she is proud and fortunate to have the best three planners and she is leaving the Planning Commission in excellent capable hands with City Planner Valenzuela who will be the Interim Community Development Director. She thanked her staff for working so hard and making everything so easy for her. Commissioner Eng stated there is a congratulatory dessert for all to enjoy after the meeting. Commissioner Tang stated echoed his colleague's comments and in the four years he has been on this Planning Commission it has been a pleasure to work with Michelle Ramirez and the Traffic Commission will be very lucky to have her on their commission. Community Development Director Ramirez thanked Commissioner Tang. She also thanked Administrative Assistant Lockwood,stated it is a team effort, and this is a great team. Vice-Chair Dang stated he would also like to thank Michelle Ramirez for being a wonderful wing-person right next to him. He stated he often leans over and ask questions and she is a wealth of knowledge, very patient, very diligent, and there have been times he has called her and there have been a few times he has called before 7:00 am and is surprised that she answers her phone so early in the morning. He thanked her for everything,for shepherding the great staff, she is a great mentorship,staff is fantastic,and he would like to give everyone a round of applause. Commissioner Herrera thanked Community Development Director. Chair Lopez also thanked Community Development Director and congratulated City Planner Valenzuela. 10 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission to be held on Monday,July 3,2017,at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers will be cancelled. The next regular Planning Commission will be held on Monday,July 17,21 at 7:00 in the Council Chambers. _ MASA Dani pez Chair ATTE T: Clef '2 Wozvezpe--- Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 11