PC - 2017-10 - Denying conditional use permit 17-02, a request for the establishment of a vocational school use at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #110, in a medium commerical with design overlay zone PC RESOLUTION 17-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02, A REQUEST FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOCATIONAL SCHOOL USE AT 8518 VALLEY
BOULEVARD, UNIT #110 (APN: 5371-010-805), IN A MEDIUM
COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (C-3/D-O) ZONE
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2017, Steven Huynh submitted a Conditional Use Permit
application, a request to establish a vocational school use at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit
#B110;
WHEREAS, 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit#110, is located in a Medium Commercial
with Design Overlay (C-3/D-O) zoning district;
WHEREAS, Section 17.132.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the
criteria for a Conditional Use Permit;
WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and
Section 17.132.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission
to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Conditional Use Permit applications;
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2017, ninety-two (92) notices were sent to property owners
within a 300-foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the
Rosemead Reader, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations and on site,
specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public
hearing for Conditional Use Permit 17-02;
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional Use
Permit 17-02;
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to June 19, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2017, the applicant and public provided additional oral
testimony and the Planning Commission further discussed the matter.
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
sufficient facts do not exist to justify approving Conditional Use Permit 17-02, in
accordance with Section 17.132.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows:
A. Approval of the application will not be or incompatible or injurious to other
properties or land uses in the vicinity or create conditions materially detrimental to the
public health, safety and general welfare.
FINDING: The Planning Commission cannot make this finding. Approval of the
application would create conditions materially detrimental to the public health and general
welfare. The proposed use would be inconsistent with the character of the immediate
vicinity of the project site and incompatible with the uses established within the existing
shopping center. Gambling is perceived as an undesirable use by the general public and
is not a permitted use in the City of Rosemead. Although the proposed use itself would
not consist of gambling activity, permitting the proposed use would introduce an element
into the shopping center with clear association with gambling. The proposed use would
create the impression of gambling activity in a shopping center with uses that attract
families, such as restaurants. The proposed use cannot be conditioned to mitigate these
concerns so as to make the proposed use appropriate for the existing shopping center.
B. The use is consistent with the General Plan.
FINDING: The Planning Commission can make this finding. The Land Use
Element of the General Plan aims to concentrate commercial and industrial businesses
in established commercial, office, and industrial districts. The proposed use would be
located in an existing shopping center on Valley Boulevard. Accordingly, the use will be
located within a shopping center within an established commercial corridor.
C. The use is consistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code.
FINDING: The Planning Commission can make this finding. The project has
satisfied all of the applicable minimum requirements of the Zoning Code. Namely, the
proposed use would be allowed in the applicable zone if this Conditional Use Permit were
approved. The project does not propose new development, so no development standards
are at issue. The proposed use would be part of an existing shopping center that has
sufficient parking as per the Zoning Code.
D. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
FINDING: The Planning Commission can make this finding. Section 15061(b)(4)
of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts a project from the
California Environmental Quality Act if the project will be rejected or disapproved by a
public agency.
E. If development is provided for under the Conditional Use Permit, the project is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the applicable standards and Design
Guidelines in the overlying district.
FINDING: The Planning Commission can make this finding. The project does not
include any new development. The scope of work is limited to only interior tenant
improvements.
SECTION 2. Because the Planning Commission cannot make all of the findings
required by the Rosemead Municipal Code for approval of a Conditional Use Permit, the
Commission HEREBY DENIES Conditional Use Permit 17-02, a request for the
establishment of a vocational school use at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #110.
SECTION 3. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this
decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed
with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in
Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.160.040 — Appeals of Decisions.
SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on July 17, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: DANG, ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, AND TANG
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall
transmit copies of same to the applicants and the Rosemead City C erk.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 17th day of Jul , 2017.
C
Sean Dang, Chair
12
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 17th day of July,
2017, by the following vote:
AYES: DANG, ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, AND TANG
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Lily T. Valenzuela, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP