CC - Item 5A - Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit 16-08 A City Initiated Request for ReviewROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL R. MANIS, CITY MANAGER 4,`N
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2017
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-08, A CITY
INITIATED REQUEST FOR REVIEW
SUMMARY
The City is initiating a Request for Review, requested by Council Member Steven Ly under
Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.160.060, to further review Conditional Use Permit
16-08. On November 27, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted a denial Resolution for
Conditional Use Permit 16-08 to operate a place of religious assembly. The subject site is located
at 7516 Emerson Place, in the Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zone.
On November 20, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public
hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional Use Permit 16-08, a request
to operate a place of religious assembly. The Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are included in this report as Attachments "C" and "D",
respectively. The Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit 16-08 and directed staff
to bring back a resolution for adoption.
On November 27, 2017, a Special Planning Commission Meeting was held to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 17-22. At the end of the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution 17-22, denying Conditional Use Permit 16-08. The Planning Commission Staff
Report, Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-22, and Draft Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes are included in this report as Attachments "E", "F", and "G", respectively.
On November 28, 2017, Council Member Steven Ly submitted a Request for Review under
RMC Section 17.160.060, to further review all land use and legal considerations for Conditional
Use Permit 16-08. A copy of Council Member Ly's letter is included in this report as Attachment
«H„
[TEM NUMBER: 54
City Council Meeting
December 12, 2017
Page 2 of 3
PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
The Planning Commission received both written and oral testimony in support and in opposition
to Conditional Use Permit 16-08, for the Planning Commission Meeting on November 20, 2017
and the Special Planning Commission Meeting on November 27, 2017.
WRITTEN TESTIMONY
On November 20, 2017, the Planning Commission was presented with two letters and a packet.
Copies of the written testimony are included in this report as Attachment "I" and "J", and "K"
respectively.
On November 27, 2017, a packet was distributed to the Planning Commission, by a member of
the public, which is attached in this report as Attachment "L".
On December 6, 2017, a packet was submitted to the City Clerk's Office by a resident, which is
attached in this report as Attachment "M".
On December 7, 2017, a packet was submitted to the City Clerk's Office by a resident, which is
attached in this report as Attachment "N".
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council either uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's decision for
Conditional Use Permit 16-08 and adopt or deny Resolution No. 2017-66 (Attachment "A" or
«B„
FISCAL IMPACT - None
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT - None
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a
300' radius public hearing notice to forty-four (44) property owners, publication in the
newspaper on November 30, 2017, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations and
on the subject site.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Xi
Annie Lao, Assistant Planner Ben Kim, Co _ity Development Director
City Council Meeting
December 12, 2017
Page 3 of 3
Attachment A: Resolution No. 2017-66
Attachment B: Resolution No. 2017-66 with Exhibit "A" (Conditions of Approval)
Attachment C: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 20, 2017 (without
attachments which are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review)
Attachment D: Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated November 20, 2017
Attachment E: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 27, 2017 (without
attachments which are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review)
Attachment F: Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-22
Attachment G: Draft Plaraiing Commission Meeting Minutes, dated November 27, 2017
Attachment H: Council Member Ly's Request for Review Letter, dated November 28, 2017
Attachment I: Written Testimony for the Planning Commission Meeting on November 20, 2017
Attachment J: Written Testimony for the Planning Commission Meeting on November 20, 2017
Attachment K: Packet distributed to the Planning Commission on November 20, 2017
Attachment L: Packet distributed to the Planning Commission on November 27, 2017
Attachment M: Packet submitted to the City Clerk's Office on December 6, 2017
Attachment N: Packet submitted to the City Clerk's Office on December 7, 2017
Attachment A
Resolution No. 2017-66
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-66
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-
08, A REQUEST TO OPERATE A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7516 EMERSON PLACE, IN THE
LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE (APN: 5286-017-004)
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 17-
22, denying Conditional Use Permit 16-08, a request to operate a place of religious assembly;
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2017, Council Member Steven Ly submitted a Request for
Review under Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.160.060, to further review Conditional Use
Permit 16-08;
WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.160.060 allows any City Council
person, based on his/her responsibility to the electorate, to file with the City Clerk a "Request for
Review" (RFR) of any decision made by the Planning Commission or any discretionary action by
the Community Development Director;
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2017, forty-four (44) 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 the Request for Review
of Conditional Use Permit 16-08;
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised
public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional Use Permit 16-08;
WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.132.040 provides a number of
findings, all of which are necessary before a Conditional Use Permit may be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them
in order to make the following determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rosemead does hereby resolve as
follows:
SECTION 1. In order to approve a Conditional Use Permit within the city of Rosemead,
Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.132.040 requires the following findings to be made:
"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.
B. The use is consistent with the general plan.
C. The use is consistent with the provisions of this zoning code.
D. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the
requirements of the California environmental quality act.
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."
SECTION 2. The City Council cannot make one of the required finding necessary to
approve Conditional Use Permit 16-08 under Section 17.132.040.A of the Rosemead Municipal
Code, as set forth below:
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 City Council cannot make this finding. Approval of the application will
be incompatible or injurious to other properties or land uses in the vicinity and will create
conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the
neighborhood. The subject location is immediately surrounded by single-family homes and is in
close proximity to Ralph Waldo Emerson Elementary. Based upon the testimony before the
Planning Commission, the proposed operations at this site will generate excessive crowds, traffic,
noise, and parking -related impacts that will negatively affect the surrounding neighbors and
properties.
SECTION 3. Because the City Council cannot make all of the findings as required by
the Rosemead Municipal Code for the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council
HEREBY UPHOLDS the Planning Commission's decision to deny Conditional Use Permit 16-
08.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter
the same shall be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12'x' day of December, 2017.
Polly Low, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
Rachel Richman, City Attorney Marc Donohue, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I, Marc Donohue, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution, No. 2017-66, was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of
December, 2017, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Marc Donohue, City Clerk
Attachment B
Resolution No. 2017-66 with Exhibit "A"
(Conditions of Approval)
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-66
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, REVERSING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 16-08, A REQUEST TO OPERATE A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS
ASSEMBLY. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7516 EMERSON
PLACE, IN THE LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE (APN:
5286-017-004)
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 17-
22, denying Conditional Use Permit 16-08, a request to operate a place of religious assembly;
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2017, Council Member Steven Ly submitted a Request for
Review under Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.160.060, to farther review Conditional Use
Permit 16-08;
WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.160.060 allows any City Council
person, based on his/her responsibility to the electorate, to file with the City Cleric a "Request for
Review" (RFR) of any decision made by the Planning Commission or any discretionary action by
the Community Development Director;
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2017, forty-four (44) 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 the Request for Review
of Conditional Use Permit 16-08;
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised
public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional Use Permit 16-08;
WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.132.040 provides a number of
findings, all of which are necessary before a Conditional Use Permit may be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them
in order to make the following determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rosemead does hereby resolve as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council HEREBY DETERMINES that Conditional Use Permit
16-08 is classified as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15303. Section 15303
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of
the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation
of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small
structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the
structure. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 16-08 and is classified as a Class 3 Categorical
Exemption, pursuant to Section 15303 of CEQA guidelines.
SECTION 2. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts
do exist to justify approving Conditional Use Permit 16-08, 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 use will not be incompatible or injurious to the residential uses on the
adjacent properties as a place of religious assembly is a use that may be conditionally permitted
within the residential zones.
The hours of operation for the place of religious assembly will be limited from 11:00 a.m.
to 2:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
and 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. The congregant departure times of the place
of religious assembly will not coincide with the student departure times of Ralph Waldo Emerson
Elementary School, as the congregant departure times will be 2:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday, and Friday and 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday; whereas the student departure times will be
2:35 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, and 1:35 p.m. on Wednesday.
Conditions of Approval have also been added for the, mitigation of potential smoke
pollution found at Condition of Approval Number 22, and to ensure that the use shall abide by
Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 8.36 regarding noise control as provided for in Conditions of
Approval Number 20 and 21.
B. The use is consistent with the General Plan.
FINDING: According to the General Plan, in residential areas, in addition to the primary
residential use, accessory structures, group homes, religious and charitable organizations are
permitted consistent with State law and zoning ordinance requirements.
C. The use is consistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code.
FINDING: The use is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code.
D. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
FINDING: Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
guidelines exempts projects consisting of the construction and location of limited numbers of
new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small
structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only
minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Accordingly, Conditional Use
Permit 16-08 are classified as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15303 of
CEQA guidelines.
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 project site is located in a R-2 zoning district. The R-2 zoning district
identifies areas characterized by single-family dwellings and duplexes. The R-2 standards are
intended to maintain the character of existing neighborhoods while allowing the opportunity for
duplex and smaller lot single-family development that is consistent with the General Plan Medium
Density Residential land use designation. In addition to the residential use, the General Plan Land
Use Element permit other uses, such as religious organizations. The project will maintain the
character of the existing neighborhood as it was designed based on applicable R-2 zoning district
standards.
SECTION 3. The City Council HEREBY REVERSES the Planning Commission's
decision to deny Conditional Use Permit 16-08 and APPROVES Conditional Use Permit 16-08,
permitting the operation of a place of religious assembly at 7516 Emerson Place, subject to the
conditions listed in Attachment "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter
the same shall be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 2017.
Polly Low, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
Rachel Richman, City Attorney Marc Donohue, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) §
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I, Marc Donohue, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution, No. 2017-66, was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of
December, 2017, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Marc Donohue, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT "A"
(CC RESOLUTION 2017-66)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-08
7516 EMERSON PLACE
(APN: 5286-017-004)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DECEMBER 12, 2017
Standard Conditions of Approval
1. Conditional Use Permit 16-08 ("Project") is approved for the operation of a place of religious
assembly at 7516 Emerson Place, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit `B", dated
November 6, 2017. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for Planning
Division review and, if satisfactory, approval.
2. The following conditions must be complied to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior
to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other
appropriate request.
3. The conditions of approval listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any
development plans submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions. The applicant shall
ensure that all conditions of approval have been met and are in full force prior to the issuance
of a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy as determined by the Director of Community
Development.
4. Approval of Project shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant(s) have filed with
the City of Rosemead ("City") a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts
all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions
within ten (10) days from the City Council approval date.
5. The on-site public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10 -day appeal
period of Project.
6. Project approval is valid for one (1) year from the City Council approval date. The
entitlement shall not be deemed exercised until a building permit has been issued and the
project has commenced construction ("break ground"), or has commenced permitted use in
compliance with the conditions of approval. If said entitlement is not exercised or a time
extension has not been granted during this time frame, this approval shall automatically
expire without further action by the City. Request for time extension shall be submitted to
the Planning Division within 30 calendar days prior to expiration. If Project has been unused,
abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year, this entitlement approval shall
become null and void.
7. The City Council hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor
modifications to the project and to these conditions of approval
8. Project is granted or approved by the City, and its Planning Commission and City Council,
retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit,
including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed
circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope,
emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change
of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the
City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit
granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions
imposed on Project.
9. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of
Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval
of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is
brought within the time period provided by law.
10. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved
use, including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff, and Health
Departments.
11. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time as all plan
check fees and all other applicable fees are paid in full. Prior to issuance of building permits,
any required school fees shall be paid. The applicant shall provide the City with written
verification of compliance from the applicable school districts.
12. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character
width of 3/4 inch, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street.
Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the
Community Development Director, or his/her designee, prior to installation.
13. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m, to 8:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any federal holiday, without
prior approval by the City. The applicant shall abide by the noise control sections of the
Rosemead Municipal Code.
14. The Building Division, Planning Division, and Engineering Division shall have access to the
project site at any time during construction to monitor progress.
15. All requirements of the Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Engineering
Division shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction.
16. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation
proceedings.
17. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti -free state. Any graffiti shall be removed within
twenty-four (24) hours.
18. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed and litter free state.
Planning Division
19. The hours of operation for assembly purposes shall be limited to 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on
Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, and 10:00
a.m, to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.
20. All noise shall abide by Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 8.36.
21. All activities shall take place within the interior of the building while the doors and windows
are closed. There shall be no amplification of music or voice outside of the building. Sound
as measured at the property line shall not exceed a noise performance standard of 60 dBA
during hours of operation.
22. Only smokeless incense shall be used, such as LED or other approved material that does not
create or emit smoke or emission other than water vapor.
23. All outdoor kitchen appliances and portable shade structures shall be removed.
24. The trash enclosure shall be constructed to match the proposed fencing. A solid roof cover,
to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, shall be provided for the trash enclosure. The
roof shall provide adequate clearance to allow complete access of waste bins. The trash
enclosure shall be equipped with self-closing, solid, doors.
25. Exterior lighting shall be of low intensity and shielded so that light will not spill out onto
surrounding properties or project above the horizontal plane.
Public Works Department
26. Install driveway approach per SPPWC Standard Plan 110-2.
27. All work proposed within the public right-of-way shall require permits from the Public
Works Department.
28. Install one (1) 24 -inches box parkway tree per SPPWC Standard Plan 520-4.
29. Remove existing and install 4 -inches thick PCC Sidewalk from property line to property line.
30. Remove existing and install PCC curb and gutter from property line to property line per
SPPWC Standard Plan 120-2.
Attachment C
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 20, 2017
(without attachments which are on file with the City Clerk's
Office for review)
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2017
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-08
7516 EMERSON PLACE
a r , W
SUMMARY
Ky Do and Binh Vinh Tran have submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit
requesting to operate a place of religious assembly. The subject property is located at
7516 Emerson Place (APN: 5286-017-004). The proposed project would not increase the
floor area of the existing building. The subject site is located in the Light Multiple
Residential (R-2) zone. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Table 17.12.020.1, approval of a
Conditional Use Permit is required to establish a place of religious assembly within the
Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts
projects consisting of the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small
facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small
structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where
only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Accordingly, Conditional
Use Permit 16-08 is classified as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section
15303 of CEQA guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17-22 with
findings (Exhibit "A"), and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 16-08, subject to the 30
conditions outlined in Attachment "A" attached hereto.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 20, 2017
Page 2 of 14
PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is located south of Emerson Place between New Avenue and Jackson
Avenue. According to the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office, the project site consists
of one parcel, totaling approximately 9,500 square feet of lot area.
Code Enforcement Violations
On April 6, 2016, Code Informant Case 16-0347 was created because the Public Safety
Department received a complaint that the single-family dwelling unit was operating as a
religious assembly establishment without proper entitlements. On April 26, 2016, the case
was closed as the religious assembly establishment ceased operations. On August 16,
2016, Code Informant Case 16-0347 was re-established as the Public Safety Department
received a complaint about the noise and smoke from incense. According to the Public
Safety Department, the property owner was issued an administrative citation for operating
a religious establishment without proper entitlements. For this reason, the applicant
submitted a Conditional Use Permit to operate a place of religious assembly.
Public Comment
On November 16, 2017, the Planning Division received a letter of opposition from a
concerned citizen. The written letter has been attached as attachment "D".
Site and Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is designated in the General Plan as Medium Density Residential and on
the zoning map as a Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zone. The site is surrounded by the
following land uses:
North
General Plan:
Medium Density Residential
Zoning:
Light Multiple Residential (R-2)
Land Use:
Residential
South
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Planning Commission Meeting
November 20, 2017
Page 3 of 14
Zoning: Light Multiple Residential (R-2)
Land Use: Residential
East
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Zoning: Light Multiple Residential (R-2)
Land Use: Residential
West
General Plan:
Medium Density Residential
Zoning:
Light Multiple Residential (R-2)
Land Use:
Residential
DISCUSSION
As illustrated in Exhibit "B", the applicants are proposing to establish a place of religious
assembly at 7516 Emerson Place. In addition, the applicants are proposing an interior
tenant improvement, a new carport, and new off-street parking spaces.
Religious Assembly Operations
The applicants are proposing the following
11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., seven days a week.
hours of operation for assembly purposes:
Site Plan
The applicants are proposing to incorporate off-street parking spaces, an attached
carport, a fully enclosed trash enclosure, new exterior lighting, and new landscaping to
the existing site. The applicants are proposing to remove all outdoor kitchen appliances
and portable shade structures.
Floor Plan
The proposed floor plan consist of a prayer room, kitchen, two bathrooms, and two
bedrooms for clergy. In addition, the applicants are proposing to construct a new carport
to the existing attached two -car garage. The applicants are also proposing to demolish
two unpermitted additions to the east side of the proposed placed of religious assembly.
Elevations
The applicants are proposing to remove all exterior security bars from all windows visible
from public right-of-way. In addition, the applicants are proposing to repair and repaint the
fascia boards.
Parking and Circulation
Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Table 17.112.040.1, one off-street parking space is
required per each 75 square feet of floor area for assembly use not containing fixed seats.
With 485 square feet of floor area proposed for assembly use not containing fixed seats,
a minimum of six off-street parking spaces are required. As shown on the proposed site
plan, the applicants are proposing to provide seven off-street parking spaces. The parking
spaces in the existing two -car garage will be reserved for clergy.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 20, 2017
Page 4 of 14
MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS
Per Rosemead Municipal Code Table 17.12.020.1, approval of a Conditional Use Permit
is required to establish a place of religious assembly within the Light Multiple Residential
(R-2) zone.
Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.132.040, all of the following findings shall be
made by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the approval of a Conditional Use
Permit:
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.
The proposed use will not be incompatible or injurious to the residential uses on
the adjacent properties as places of religious assembly is a use that may be
conditionally permitted within the residential zones. Conditions of approval for the
limited hours of operation, lighting, and construction will protect the public health,
safety, and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood.
B. The use is consistent with the General Plan.
According to the General Plan, in residential areas, in addition to the primary
residential use, accessory structures, group homes, religious and charitable
organizations are permitted consistent with State law and zoning ordinance
requirements.
C. The use is consistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code.
The use is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code.
D. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines
exempts projects consisting of the construction and location of limited numbers of
new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities
in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to
another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.
Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 16-08 is classified as a Class 3 Categorical
Exemption, pursuant to Section 15303 of CEQA guidelines.
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.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 20, 2017
Page 5 of 14
The project site is located in a R-2 zoning district. The R-2 zoning district identifies
areas characterized by single-family dwellings and duplexes. The R-2 standards
are intended to maintain the character of existing neighborhoods while allowing
the opportunity for duplex and smaller lot single-family development that is
consistent with the General Plan Medium Density Residential land use
designation. In addition to the residential use, the General Plan Land Use Element
permit other uses, such as religious organizations. The project will maintain the
character of the existing neighborhood as it was designed based on applicable R-
2 zoning district standards.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which
includes a 300 -foot radius public hearing notice to 44 property owners, publication in the
Rosemead Reader on November 9, 2017, and postings of the notice at the six public
locations and on the subject site.
Prepared by:
Annie Lao
Assistant Planner
Submitted by:
Ben Ki
C munity Development Director
EXHIBITS:
A. Planning Commission Resolution 17-22 with Attachment "A" (Conditions of Approval)
B. Site Plan and Floor Plan (Dated November 6, 2017)
C. Assessor Parcel Map (APN: 5286-017-004)
D. Public Comment Letter Dated November 16, 2017
Attachment D
Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated
November 20, 2017
Minutes of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 20, 2017
The special meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Dang in the City Hall Council
Chambers located at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chair Dang
INVOCATION — Vice -Chair Tang
ROLL CALL — Commissioners Herrera, Lopez, Vice -Chair Tang and Chair Dang
ABSENT - Chair Eng
STAFF PRESENT - City Attorney Thuyen, Community I
Commission Secretary Lockwood.
1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND 1
City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIEKC�E
David Diaz, MPH Board Member, stated he is the'r
be representing the Rosemead, South EI Monte, E
Commissioner for the City of South EI Monte. He
business card with the Plannmgr
Assistant Planner Lao replied there are 12 massage establishments.
Commissioner Lopez asked how close are they to each other.
Assistant Planner Lao replied there are some within 100 square feet, two are on San Gabriel Boulevard, four are on
Garvey Avenue, and six are on Valley Boulevard.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if the Chief of Police have an opportunity to review this item and did he have any input on it.
Assistant Planner Lao replied yes, the Chief of Police did review this item, he repos"seed a security plan, and he has
reviewed it. She added it is attached in the staff report as, "Exhibit E".
Chair Dang asked how many massage establishments are adjacent to thisproposetlsjte.
Assistant Planner Lao replied there is one in the Plaza next door arid, it is called the "Franklyn Palace Massage".
Chair Dang asked if it is the same type of massage establishment or is it a spa.
Assistant Planner Lao replied the "Franklyn Palace Massage" is just for body massage and this one incorporates foot
and body massage.
Chair Dang asked if there were any further
Chair Lopez asked what are the hours of
Assistant Planner Lao replied
them from 8:00 am to 10:00 p
to 10:000m. She stated the municipal code limits
g the hours of 10:00 am to 10:00 pm.
Commissioner Herrera asked why this is ;item being presented to the Planning Commission because staff usually
approves items like this over-Ahe counter
Assistant Planngr Lao,egplamed before a massage ordinance was established it was permitted by right, then
afterwards it required an Accessory Us`> Permit (AUP). There had been a moratorium on this and currently it requires
a Conditiorial Use Perm it,=which is brought to the Planning Commission for approval. She added this is the
first proposed massage establishment that'.requires Planning Commission approval, since that moratorium.
asked if the„ moratorium was restricting massage establishments because there was an
Assistant Planner Lao [6p Yes.,
Commissioner Herrera asked what number of businesses such as massage establishments would make this
overpopulated.
Assistant Planner Lao replied she does not have that information but currently there are 12 massage establishments
in the City of Rosemead.
Commissioner Herrera asked what is the maximum amount.
Assistant Planner Lao replied there is not a maximum in the Ordinance.
PA
Commissioner Herrera stated so the moratorium was just to limit it to more than the last one.
Assistant Planner Lao replied the moratorium stated no new massage establishments can operate or be established
for a certain amount of time. Once that time had passed it was then decided that a conditional use permit was required.
Chair Dang asked the applicant to the podium.
Kamen Lai, Designer, stated he assisted the applicant prepare the plans for this presentation. He stated during this
process, which took 2 months, they have worked with staff, and the building department to make sure all requirements
have been met. He stated the hours of operation are 10:00 am to 10:00 pm and in_this plaza this will be the only
massage establishment. He added that there are only 12 massage establishmentil Rosemead, which is less than
what the City of San Gabriel has. He stated the applicant is willing to accept alkconditions of approval and they
are present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have.
Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and asked if there
None
Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning C
None
Chair Deng requested a motion.
Vice -Chair Tang made a motion, seconded by
subject to the 23 conditions.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: gang, Herrera, Lopez, and
No: None
Eng
to speak on this item.
any further questions,or comments.
to approve Conditional Use Permit 17.07,
pment Director Kim'steted the motion to approve the conditional use permit passes with a vote of 4
He also explained the 10 -',day appeal process.
B. CONbiTIONAL USE PERMITA6.08 - Ky Do and Binh Vinh Tran have submitted an application for a
Conditional;Use Permit requesting to operate a place of religious assembly. The subject property is
located at 7516-'merson,Plaae (APN: 5286.017.004). The proposed project would not increase the floor
area of the existing,puiiding. The subject site is located in the Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zone. Per
Rosemead Municipal)d6de Table 17.12.020.1, approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to
establish a place ofreligious assembly within the Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zone.
PC RESOLUTION 17.22 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 16.08 FOR THE OPERATION OF A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY. THE SUBJECT SITE IS
LOCATED AT 7516 EMERSON PLACE (APN: 5286.017.004), IN A LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (R-2)
ZONE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No.
17.22 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 16.08, subject to the 30 conditions.
Community Development Director Kim announced that parking is not allowed in the City Council parking and requested
people to please remove their vehicle.
Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report.
Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments for staff.
Vice -Chair Tang asked how many religious assemblies the City of Rosemead has and what zone are they in.
Assistant Planner Lao replied there are 22 religious assemblies and three are in,the;C=3 zone, two in the P -D zone,
two in the CI -MU zone, five in the R-1 zone, six in the R-2 zone, one in the C-3/D;O"zone, one in the C -1/R-2 zone,
one in the C/3/R-2 zone, and one in the C -3/0-S zone.
Vice -Chair Tang referred to their hours of operation and stated they are proposing 11 i00 am to 3:00 pm. He asked if
they want to go outside of those hours for a special ceremony,, would they come backAo apply for a special
Administrative Permit, or what would be the process.'
Assistant Planner Lao replied if it is a one-time event, theywou
Vice -Chair Tang asked if that would allow them to expand their
Assistant Planner Lao replied it would not, but taould be
approved or denied.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if they are granted a Special,Event F
requirements in regards to parking. > ;
Assistant Planner Lao repliddAhat when ti
it will disclose if additional irking will be
parking requirement and may have to pnr"
have to apply for a Special
the Special Event Permit would be
to be exempt from additional
fenf Permit is reviewed by the Community Development Director
If it is necessary, then the applicant will be required to meet the
to for parking.
Chair Dang rQgdested�that cell ph6nOOe silenced. He invited the applicant to the podium.
Ky Do,--40plicant, thanked & ryon11_1e forbeing there and all their support. He addressed the Planning Commission and
statedl ,-has been practicing ase successful dentist for about 25 years and he has been the president of this Temple
for 17 terms. ;He stated he has pride of the member's accomplishments such as organized trips to Asia to do charity
work, gave donations to the poor,1and has helped flood victims around the world, especially in Vietnam. He added
their goal is to glofialiy humanitarian; kHeir main location is at 7516 Emerson Place, and they have resided there for over
25 years. He stated%that for all„tne"se years they have received support from the community and from most of their
neighbors. He stated as,memberS of a nonprofit organization, they are friendly, reserved, and rarely disturbing nearby
houses, most of the membe&Walk or take public transport to the temple, so additional cars parked in the street will be
minimal. He stated their meetings are generally not too noisy, and activities are from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm. He
stated many of his friends have driven back and forth across their location for many years and many of them have not
realized there is a temple there demonstrating how inconspicuous, quite, and how non -disturbing they are to the
neighborhood. He said the average number of people attending the temple per day are three or four members and
most of the day there are none. He stated they only hold four annual events and named them stating they are
significant events in their culture. They occasionally host small get-togethers on weekends for people in the community
to share food, practice their religion, to maintain their strong relationships and networks over the years. He stated
this symbol of caring for the past is very important to them, especially for the elderly like his mom, and because of the
small events friends and families that have been lost over 40 years are able to reconnect and see each other once
again since days of elementary school in Vietnam. He stated the joy of having the ability to see old friends is
priceless. He gave a brief summary of the history and how their Chinese ancestor's brought their religion to Vietnam
many centuries ago. He stated since they did not have the financial privilege of other associations they could only
afford a small place in this neighborhood. He said they believe this location is ideal because there is a church and a
school nearby and they do not make more noise than the school playground. He commented the incense burnt from
their temple will not surmise the smoke from someone's barbeque, however, they have decided to use more of the
smokeless incense from now on. He stated they do not wish to disturb anyone at all and they only wish to practice a
religion that is very important to them, their culture, and to spiritual need. He stated they will do whatever they can to
comply with the City and they will discuss and resolve any reasonable complaint from any neighbor. He added faith
has got them here and without faith all hopes would be lost. He requested that the Planning Commission please help
them to fulfill their dream and consider granting this conditional use permit and it will be,greatly appreciated.
Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or
Commissioner Lopez stated the hours of operation are 11:00 am to 3
Ky Do, applicant, stated not 7 days a week, mostly just on Sundays q
Commissioner Lopez asked if they are open 7 days a week,.but religi
Ky Do, applicant replied yes.
Vice -Chair Tang stated religious gatherings arewly on Sunday
establishment from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm, 7 days a'Week,. _
Ky Do, applicant, replied yes.
Vice -Chair Tang stated so essentially tbey,are still
was correct. _
Ky Do, applicant replied tN&pverage number of people
Vice -Chair
Ky Do,
asked what
days a week.
gatherings are only
if they still allow people to come into their
1:00 am to 3:00 pm and asked if that
during the week are only three to four.
are 11:00 am to 3:00 pm, 7 days a week.
place at this establishment.
Ky Do, applic, ;replied they sharOopd, networking, talking, and building strong relationships.
Vice -Chair Tang stated and confirmed there are prayers also.
Ky Do, applicant, replied'yes.'„r
Vice -Chair Tang asked if there are special or formal programs that go on there or do people just come, pray, and eat.
Ky Do, applicant, replied yes.
Vice -Chair Tang asked at most how many people do they usually entertain.
Ky Do, applicant, replied maybe 25 to 30 people.
Vice -Chair Tang asked why at this location.
Ky Do, applicant, replied this is the only location they can afford currently.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if currently anyone resides at this establishment.
Ky Do, applicant, replied yes, one person resides there.
Vice -Chair Tang asked who is that one person.
Ky Do, applicant, replied that person just watches the temple.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if that person resides there permanently.
Ky Do, applicant, replied yes.
Vice -Chair Tang asked staff what the square footage of the home is.
Assistant Planner Lao replied the applicant is proposing to
will be 1,308 square feet.
Vice -Chair Tang asked with that square footage does the fire
a building of that size.
Assistant Planner Lao replied the Building
check.
some illegal additions and theinew square footage
any type of maximum capacity with
maximum capacity if it goes to plan
Chair Dang requested that everyone,hglflheir applause so it ddes not disturtithe meeting.
City Attorney Thuyen stated he echo's ChaieDang's comment, so that everyone is comfortable and available to do
public comment. This maybe an emotionaltssue for peopl`e,who are for or against this item and requested that noise
be kept at a minimal and keep,clapping'.cheers, or. boos to a rginimum. He added that way there is an atmosphere
that allows people to comment and pravid61he fesfamert freely'
Chair Danq asked the a6phcant if the esignerlarchitect is present.
Ky Da; applicant, replied yes.
David Ho, representative for the achjtect, stated he is present and the architect is not.
Chair Dang stated he -has a few,design requirements on the building that he wants some clarifications on. He pointed
out that one is the 200 feet long driveway and asked if there is a particular paving or color scheme.
David Ho, representative, stated they will follow whatever the city requirement is.
Chair Dang stated he would like to reiterate that to aesthetically break the long driveway he recommends doing saw
cuts, pavers, or stamp concrete, or stain the concrete. He added staff can help them without if it is favorable and it will
help this project blend in with the surrounding residential neighbors.
David Ho, representative, agreed and stated it is not a problem.
Chair Dang stated since a block wall is going to be installed he recommends that it be earth tone colors instead of
gray.
David Ho, representative, agreed and stated it is not a problem.
Chair Dang referred to the front fencing and asked if it inclusive of the wrought iron gate that is there.
Assistant Planner Lao replied yes, it will include everything, and the maximum height will be four feet.
Commissioner Herrera asked if the Planning Commission is approving the
the modification of the residential home.
Assistant Planner Lao replied yes.
Commissioner Herrera asked if one is contingent to the other one b
Assistant Planner Lao replied no, and explained if the religious as'.
parking lot, there will be no changes, and it will convert to being -,a s
Commissioner Herrera stated it currently seems to be a single -farm,
Assistant Planner Lao replied currently it is a singlejamily dwelling,
carport. "
Vice -Chair Tang asked staff when this site began iteoperatibn
religious establishment and
done regardless.
does not get approved, there will not be a
mily dwelling unit. _
not a parking lot and there is no proposed
Assistant Planner Lao replied accordi 610,the Code Enforcement case iilethe first complaint was dated August 6,
2016, for a single family dwgjlmg unit operating as a religious assembly without proper entitlements.
Vice -Chair Tang clarified;that"it was April 6; 2016.
Assistant Planner "Lao replied yes Aprilm(i, 2016'
Vice -Chair Tah'asked if th'ey,are pfesenttoday because of those case findings.
Lao
Chair Dang'aii*gd staff to elaborate;on what a Special Event permit entails
Assistant Planner Lao- explained,that`a Special Event permit requires that an application is submitted within 30 to 60
days before the event, the;Comy Development Director will review it and take consideration of parking, noise, and
traffic. It is also routed outtp Public Safety, Engineering, Building and Safety, for their review. Once all comments
have been collected then the Special Event Permit will be approved or denied.
Chair Dang asked if that is once a year or how often can one apply for this Special Event Permit.
Assistant Planner Lao replied she believes it is twice a year.
Chair Dang referred to the hours of operation of 11:00 am to 3:00 pm and stated the applicant mentioned that members
typically come in at 3:00 pm and asked how long do they stay.
Ky Do, applicant, replied members come in at 11:00 am.
7
Chair Dang asked during a normal week how many members visit this site.
Ky Do, applicant, replied three or four per day.
Chair Dang asked during special events is there is a larger congregation.
Ky Do, applicant, replied yes.
Chair Dang asked how many people usually attend the special events.
Ky Do, applicant, replied it is usually 25 to 30 people.
Chair Dang asked if the special events are held inside the building.
Ky Do, applicant, replied they are held in the back yard.
Commissioner Lopez referred to the hours of operation <
Saturday and Sunday is when the majority of the people
Ky Do, applicant, replied they visit on Sunday only.
Commissioner Lopez commented that they are opan se?
Ky Do, applicant, replied they are open for membefs'onl
Commissioner Lopez asked
Ky Do, applicant, replied there`are about
Commissioner Lopez expressed his
attend only on Sunday. He saki the
week also. .
Ky Dp,'applicant, stated
asked if mor6than 20
Ky Do, applicant lied that
are
days a
seven days a week and asked the applicant if
can come and visit.
so close and the applicant has indicated members
t many members they are able to attend during the
they do not need to park on the street at all.
attend during the week.
Commissioner Lopez`stated thafis telling him that is not going to happen, but it is established that it can happen. He
stated since there is a school wiff a lot of children that is difficult to accept. He added he is not against the religion or
having their Sunday's, because all churches have their gatherings on the weekends. He stated he is just concerned
about during the week and the families that have to pick up their children at the school. He stated they have to be sure
that this is not going to happen.
Ky Do, applicant, stated they will guarantee that they will not be parking close to the school and he will let all his
members know.
Commissioner Lopez asked why have it open during the week.
Ky Do, applicant, replied because it is not wise to close it completely.
Vice -Chair Tang asked where will the members park.
Ky Do, applicant, replied a friend has offered a location nearby, which has more than ten parking spaces.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if it is a commercial parking lot and if members will be shuttled.
Ky Do, applicant, replied it is within walking distance.
Vice -Chair Tang referred to the site plan and stated the width of the driveway, parking space number seven, and he is
trying to figure out if a car is able to maneuver in and out of there in terms of circulation. He stated if there are 25
people at this location, he is concerned if a vehicle parks in stall number seven; will it be able to reverse and exit.
Assistant Planner Lao replied that the code states it is required that there is a minimum of25 feet of back-up space. She
added parking space number seven does meet that code.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if there is a reason why there is a six-foot separation between the carport the outdoor parking
Assistant Planner Lao replied there is a 20 percent
Chair Dang asked what is the landscaping requirement number.
Assistant Planner Lao replied the lot size is
1,900 square feet of landscaping.
Chair Deng asked if that is based off the zoning or
Assistant Planner Lao
Chair Dang asked if this* a commercial zone what
Assistant Planner Lao replied,
Community DeVelopmentDire
and stafed Section 17.124-)4(
Commissioner, Herrera stated
there havebegrj police calls n
Assistant Planner Lao.replied
residents that are present -this
Commissioner Herrera asked"
applicant
20 percent, and they will need around
this is R-2; which requires 20 percent landscaping.
landscaping requirement be.
Kim addressed Chair Dang and responded to the Special Event Permit requirement
the code lrnits Special Events to three times in a calendar year.
if there have been any complaints from the neighborhood or if
not have information if police calls have been made, but there are several
and their concerns are regarding with smoke, noise, and parking in the street.
that has been going on ever since it started.
Assistant Planner Lao replied yes.
Commissioner Herrera asked if this has been going on since "1916."
Assistant Planner Lao replied Code Enforcement began a case file on April 6, 2016 and they ceased their
operation. She added the case was then re-established on April 26, 2016, because the applicant began their operation
again.
Commissioner Herrera commented that the applicant knew they were supposed to cease but they continued to
operate.
Vice -Chair Tang asked the applicant when did they first acquire this property.
Ky Do, applicant, replied "1991."
Vice -Chair Tang asked if this has always been a single family residence or has it always been a religious assembly.
Ky Do, applicant, replied it has always been a religious assembly but as a single family, residence.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if that has been close to 20 years.
Ky Do, applicant, replied that has been over 26 years.
Chair Dang asked Mr. Do if he was aware of the code
Ky Do, applicant, replied no, he was not.
Chair Dang asked the applicant if he was always the
issues.
Ky Do, applicant, replied yes, for the last two years:.
Chair Dang asked if his predecessor knew about them
Ky Do, applicant, replied he is
Chair Dang asked if hispredei
Ky Do, applicant, replied rio•
Chair Dang referred 1p thq act
Ky Doapplicant, replied
Chair Dang,,, ed during these
Ky Do, applicant; -,replied yes.
Chair Dang asked
Ky Do, applicant, replied
1M
were.
him
that were brought:against the property.
officer that addressed these type of
activities.
are held outside and asked if there were four of them.
is lit and asked if there is a new product that is smokeless now.
smell from the incense.
some with him and offered to demonstrate it.
Chair Dang declined the demonstration and thanked the applicant. He asked if there was an outdoor ceremony, where
will it be placed because it will affect the parking, and where will their patrons park.
Ky Do, applicant replied at his friend's facility that is about 800 feet away.
Chair Dang asked if there is an address to that facility, so they may see what it looks like.
I
William Su, owner of that property of the corner of Del Mar Avenue and Emerson Avenue. He presented the address
and stated he would like to offer his property as an off-site parking facility to assist the applicant if it is allowed.
Chair Dang asked what type of business is located at this facility.
William Su, property owner replied it is an office building with 12 parking spaces.
Chair Dang asked if the 12 parking spaces service the office building.
William Su, property owner replied yes, but during the weekend they are closed„ so they can park there on the
weekends.
Chair Dang asked if they are just proposing their facility for parking if there is a weekend ceremony.
William Su, property owner replied yes, most of their ceremonies are conducted on the weekends only.
Chair Dang asked staff if there is a zoning regulation regarding off-site parking.
Assistant Planner Lao replied yes, and stated to allow shared'parking it is required to have 300's'40`are feet away in
order to utilize the shared parking agreement.
Chair Dang asked if that is a 300 feet walking
Assistant Planner Lao replied it is 300 feet
Chair Dang asked if the
None
further questions for staff.
Chair Dang thanked the applicant and opened the Public Hearing. He stated there are quite a few speaker requests
and reminded the public to please limit,cominents,to.three mihu'tes each. He called the first speaker Niem Thai.
Niem Thai representative for his mother (Hue Hong) stated he supports this item, it is important for his mother to have
the opportunity to go tothisfacility on the weekends, and to the ceremonies if there is one. It is part of their culture,
faith, and,h'erequested that the PIan nitig�Commission approve this item, so the members may continue to
attend ,beceuse this is very important to them,
Robert Ysais„tesident stated he opposes this item and has lived in the area 30 to 40 years. His concerns are lack of
parking, heavy "traffic especially whenfunctions/gatherings take place, dangerous for children walking during school
hours, during the evenings, and for'tte pedestrian traffic on weekends with families walking to the only nearby market.
Michelle Du, resident stafedshe'supports this item because this is a special place for her, her family, and to many that
have attended this evening, 'She added this not just a place for them to come and pray. It is a place for the community
to bond, support one another, and for the younger generation to learn about their heritage, culture, and traditions. She
requested that the Planning Commission support and approve this item.
Michael Vo, Mayor Pro Tem from Fountain Valley, wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. He stated he supports
this item and this group has not only has impacted this community, but has also helped people in Orange County. He
added this Municipal Court right now is allowed to assemble and set limits and when he sits at the dais he wants to
make a decision that would most benefit the community. He stated that he has had the privilege of meeting so many
members through this group. He has had the opportunity to meet doctor's, dentist, business owners, donating their
time and talent to serve the community. He added this is not a religious assembly place, members attend at their free
11
will, and there are no requirements while there, it is a mainly a social support group. He added this is a place that
allows them to ask for help, to connect with each other, and is helpful especially if they are new to this country, which
is the intention here. He added this has been here for 24 years and there have not been any incidents, police reports,
and there could be a few disgruntled residents. He commented that some residents will have more parties than others
and that is expected and allowed within City limits. He thanked the Planning Commission for their time and requested
that the Planning Commission approve this item. He added this is a conditional use permit with conditions of approval,
which can be enforced.
Chichi Tran, spoke for Feng Phu and some of her friends, because she does not speak English. She stated Feng Phu
is almost 80 years old and lives in the property next to this temple for 21 years, since 1996. She does not drive, does
not have any social activity, and Sunday is the best time for them to visit the tempi from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm. She
can practice her religion and meet her old friends. She thanked the Planning Commission and supports this item.
Howard E. Mattern, resident stated he has been a resident of Rosemead forover 40years and had been a Rosemead
Planning Commissioner for 13 years. He added the applicant has demonstrated by<having 600 people present this
evening, that they will have more than 23 to 25 people at times ',and they will probably have 50 to 100 people. He
stated that when he was a Planning Commissioner there was a;
always the time to correct something. He requested the Planning Commission look at the real problem and the real
situation to grant their approval for the temple.
Brian Lewin, resident stated that the applicant has commented they will do anything to abide by the City, but the pictures
that were recently downloaded from their facebook page and all those pictures were taken after April 26, 2016, when
the first code violation was closed because it allegedly ceased operations. He said a lot of those pictures were taken
on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, which was seven days after that case was closed. He stated they are certainly very active
for a place that supposedly suspended operations because of code enforcement issues. He expressed that speaks a
lot towards character and willingness to wanting to obey and follow the rules. They have shown very extensively a
disregard for a city code enforcement and regulations. He stated if the Planning Commission gives them this you are
rewarding this behavior and its alright just keep doing it for a year and a half and gave them a conditional use permit
to operate. He stated to please consider those issues when the Planning Commission makes their decision. He added
the city has had other places that have had problems like that and generally when you have people that don't follow
the rules and you give them your blessing they continue to not follow the tules: H6e rlppgpested that the city considers
this while making their decision.
Vice -Chair Tang thanked Mr. Lewins comments on this item
taken and then posted. So the date on them may be misint(
transparency that they acknowledge that aspect of it.
Bob Bruesch, representative of the Garvey School District, he ste
lived through a time period of his life when their congregation did no
him because he has to worry about the school and'the*ids in that
school was built almost 100 years ago for about 1' ,:staff r
that parking lot does not hold 40 cars, so they are.alway:
they have nowhere else to put them._ He stated he has,1
the junk day you cannot find a place wiliiin„blocks of that
worry is the time period of �his,temple lettjn out at 3:00
any school, kids do not walk, -Mime from school any mon
there has been two aecjdents where children crossing
Commission has a hard decision to make.6iifthey;do.ne
and at 2:30 to 3:00 that the students are adequafely,proT
ed that there is a difference when pictures are
and he wants to make surei n,the fair sense of
as also a PK kid ( a peaches kid) and he
home. He added he has to putthat behind
ping on that school board. He added that
;Ts and it now almost has 40 staff members. He added
a the parking along'Emerson Avenue for staff because
o'the school -many times during the day, especially on
ill to park because it is so crowded. He stated the real
He stated between 2:30 and 3:00 if you have been by
parents pick them up. He stated up to two weeks ago
treet that got hit. He added he knows the Planning
ne guarantee that their staff will not shut off of parking
from increased traffic.
Ruth Mak, stated she sent letter of rer upst to yield Su Mak's three -minutes time to complete her presentation in six-
minutes'She a expressed her love for the community and that she's live in the City for over 37 years. She stated she
loves theinommunity so much she came backto be a teacher for Richard Garvey Intermediate School. Ms. Mak also
stated that'she continues to lovethecity, so she is here today. She states as an educator, her priority has always
been the children,, particularly child"safety and health. Ms. Mak strongly believes knowledge is useless if you do not
live to utilize ii�pb Perly. For ten years, on the first day of school, she would review lockdown, fire and earthquake
procedures with h6i:students, as they would retain what they learn on the first day. Now, she feels that the safety and
health of the children in;
empty promise. She stated she had told them the fumes from the incense was too much and she had to close the
windows and doors to block the fumes, so they said they would switch it to electric incense, but they never did, another
lie. Just yesterday, she smelled the smell of incense emitting from their location, which proves they never switched,
another lie. She said she wants to stay in the community, but she feels like she is being driven away. She can't stand
by a culture that will allow a temple to open in the middle of a residential area, so close to a school. Ms. Mak said it
hurts her heart to learn that the children she'll be teaching will be exposed to the fumes from the incense that can cause
asthma, cancer, or have a long term health issues. She also expressed her disappointment with the City for giving
such short notice and how parents at Emerson School should have the right to know as it affects their child's health.
The notice came on the afternoon of Wednesday, November 15th and the school was closed on Friday, so they had
less than two days. Ms. Mak said this isn't the community she grew up loving and not the community she wants to
stay in. She ended requesting the Commission think of the kids, they are the future;.and we are supposed to protect
them; don't make a decision that will harm them.
Richard Mak, referred to the presentation that he submitted and clarified that the photo in "Slide 8" is dated May 1,
2016. He said the story has been very inconsistent. They have been operating as a temple since they said they have
said they have deceased operations. He then referred to "Slide 10',`,and said it's the mostimportant point; the staff
report doesn't indicate the school is 158 feet away from the temple. "Mr. Mak added, the school serves 528 kids and
these kids would be spending the next 6-7 years of their lives,smelling breathing incense smoke �:He then referred to
"Slide 11" and said on school property, there is a sign that says :,tobacco use s prohibited. Mr. Maki. , ed the temple
property is two homes away from the school. He then said on °Slide 131' the temple knows that their smoke is so bad,
they built a wall barrier and on "Slide 14", the wall barrier is higher than a home. He points to "Slide 15" and said we
all know smoke is bad, but we also now know thatincense smoke is even; worse than cigarette smoke. Mr. Mak then
encouraged the Commission to review a study done ky the South China Gniversity of Technology in 2015, which shows
that it leads to a higher rate of cancer than cigarette smoke, He refers to;"Page 16" and discussed the density of
temples in the area, which shows that within a half -mile radius; there,aIre four. Hesaid there are plenty of temples and
we don't need a temple next to a school. Mr. Mak refers,to' "P agewhich is a goggle earth that shows the residential
street, a two-lane road with minim al, parking and minimal traffic `accommbdtion. He then refers to the picture on the
right on "Slide 17" and said itshows how,-inany people shod up at one of the events. He also said this is from their
Facebook page, which the 46 not shy about, they're saying the are violating the code. He said there are more in
p 9 „Y�� Y - Y y 9 Y 9
this room than what they"'are,talking abouts :Mr. Mak refers to -,'Page 19" and said he cares about the facts, smoke is
bad for kids, incense smoke;is even worse segond, the school is,only 158 feet from the temple, allowing this will open
the door for cigarette lounge's,smoke clubs,'srnoking:rooms; and other temple with incense smoke to open nearby
schools and,,lastty and:most important; there are already four temples within a half square mile. He ended and said
he's a Buc(dhistand he knows what they, are trying to do.
William uu, expressed that he is4lowin6them to use his off-site parking lot to meet the City's requirements to qualify
for the permit, He said he's been involved with the community for thirty something years. He explained most of their
activities are,on,weekends. Yes, thOy have 600 members. He comes from an organization with 1,200 people. He
said how many people are really going there actively on weekdays. His temple is open from 9:00 to 5:00. He said the
doors are open f F anyone to walkdn to pray, but are no activities. People just come in to pray, maybe one person or
groups of four orfive :Hb said people barely come during the weekdays. He also said the members have already said
that's where they meet friendsand enjoy their life on weekends.
Lee Chen, said he comes from Santa Ana, California and is a member of their temple. He answered Vice -Chair Tang's
question about why the place was selected and they answered it was all that they can afford. He then explained the
history of the temple and who they are worshipping. He said about a thousand years ago, back in China, there's a little
island called Meizhou island, off the coast of Fujian. Meizhou island is a little fishing village, all the people rely on their
livelihood by fishing. Mr. Chen said there's a little girl named Ling Mei Liang, her parents and siblings were all
fishermen's and with the limited knowledge, fishing boats would capsize while they work at the sea. Mei Liang grew
up and she cared for the fishermen's. She tried to learn the theory of ying and yang and learned the art of Chinese
herbs to help the fishermen's when they were sick or struck with disease. One day, the weather turned very ugly and
her father and siblings were out to sea. She tried to go out there to warn them about the danger and on her way back,
101
her boat capsized and she perished. He said she is both a weather forecaster and a doctor in the village. People were
really hurt and refused to acknowledge that she had passed, so they built temples for her. One hundred years later,
when people go to southeast Asia, they all travel by boat to worship her. In 1975, they had a temple in Vietnam. He
ended and said this is all that they can afford and would love to have money like Bill Gates.
David Brockway, said he'd like to say a few things. He said traffic and parking are a fact of life in the United States and
in every city in the San Gabriel Valley. It's something we deal with day in and day out. He also said it's changed a lot
over the last ten years and even more in the last 20 years, and he guarantees it will get worse over the next ten years.
Mr. Brockway said one thing clear to him is that the basis of these house temples are in essence, the basis of the
family; they are the basis for the culture and the bringing up of children. He said there, is talk of an elementary school
and questioned how many people from elementary school don't make it passed high school. He said the community
of the Asian culture not only make it not only passes elementary school and high school, but they flood the universities
and they flood the job market, because their parents have taught them the culture ofAsia and how to be citizens of the
United States. Mr. Brockway also stated that these people that they see,before them,,'came over from 1979, stateless,
kicked out of their country, and came as immigrants. They have built a life'and that life,eomes from those temples and
succeeded. He requested the Commission approve the resolution. Mr,, rockway said the temple has been in operation
since 1991 and just recently, it's been brought up that incense causes cancer. He ended by;soymg there was a time
when San Gabriel Valley was filled with crime, but its not artymore".
Linh Tran, thanked the community for their time to listen to both!sides. S
agrees with parking and there's traffic in LA. She said there are parkingi
Ky Do has indicated that he will use smokeless,incense and they want to
there and it's so sad. Ms. Tran said they have discussed.three solutions
teacher before, loves children, and doesn't like smolders. Nts: Tran stated
like Dr. Do mentioned, use parking from William Su's,property,uand the pr
said the temple is very important for a' -lot of people; they;come for iellowsf
it and pray. She encouraged the Commisssion to grant their permit and_K
reach an agreement.
id she's here to listen to'both sides and
s everywhere. She also stated that Dr.
with the neighbors. She said they meet
ughly. She also said she was a school
will find solutions such as using incense
y.wiJl provide nine parking spaces. She
)me have family issues. They talk about
3es to work it out to make both sides to
Betty Kwan said she's a resident of Templq, Qity. She stated,she has concerns about traffic. She said there are other
temples in the vicinity that WilLaccommodate the religion or he same religion, so she doesn't see why you need
another temple so close to the vicinity of�the'school::`$he'said the health and safety of the children can be jeopardized
with extra trafflo;=irrtore cars, etc: She°is concerned that it Was never mentioned that there were no temples in the
vicinity of this current potential site'tKat;may accommodate the same religion. Ms. Kwan is concerned as there are
alternatives"and it was never. mentioned,
Chair Dariasaid he had no more sp'eaker reoluests and asked if anyone else would like to speak.
David Ho, said te;has property in Rosemead and can donate them as parking over the weekend.
Mike Tran, said he doesn1,kRO' yWhy they are complaining. He also said he works Monday through Friday and attends
the temple on Sunday. If they take it away, where will he go to pray. He said going to the temple eases his pain. He
added that he sees parents'picking and dropping off their children in the red zone. Mr. Tran said they will have special
incense. He ended saying he goes every Sunday and doesn't know where he'll go.
Chair Dang asked if there were more speakers and closed the public comment period. He asked the Commissioners
if they have any comments.
Commissioner Lopez expressed his concerns during the weekdays. He said the kids get out of school at 2:30 and if
anything gets approved, we need to add a condition to restrict that. He's concerned about the kids at the school. He
also said here in Rosemead, we welcome all, but there is incense and it is a concern as it bothers people.
15
Vice -Chair Tang asked Assistant Planner Lao if she knows the distance from the proposed site to the Mr. Su's site
Assistant Planner Lao answered that Mr. Su said 800 feet.
Vice -Chair Tang asked Assistant Planner Lao if Mr. Su will be in violation of parking requirements for his business if
he gives his parking to the temple.
Assistant Planner Lao answered that yes, Mr. Su would no longer meet his parking requirement if he allows people
from the temple to use his parking, since he has no excess parking.
Vice -Chair Tang stated that he is conflicted, as are many of the Planning Commissioners. He stated that although he
wants the community to respect culture diversity and opportunity for individuals to.freely practice their religion, there
are significant negative impacts to the local community and neighboring resldents: As a planning commissioner, he
stated it is the commission's responsibility to take those negative impacts into account, evaluate them and create a
suitable community for all to enjoy. He expressed that his view is that R-2 zoning was meant for single-family residents
to raise their children and grow their roots and that the planning commission has a duty to maintain that character.
Vice- Chair Tang expressed that in his opinion, he thinks that the impacts that this project has outweigh the benefits of
the project.
Chair Herrera expressed that although she loves the establishment andmhk they are doing, she does not love the
proposed location for the project and that there, are four other alterriativ@ locations.
Vice -Chair Tang stated that when individuals come up totestify,and give their public input on matters, especially from
the applicant themselves, commissioners usually'#ake theirword-and do ngtask for evidence. Vice -Chair Tang
expressed his concern for transparency from the applicant in relation to maximum capacity and peaktime forthe temple
vro
services. The applicant had preusly,stated the max imuru Capacity to be �5=persons, but Chair Tang was concerned
with the photographed displays on sod al-mpdia indicafng�tMat the temple would be accommodating more than 25
persons, In Vice -Chair Tang's opinion, the applicant had lost credibility and asked that in the future the applicant provide
complete transparency to the, planning commission or any public entity when testifying.
Chair Deng stated he appreciated both fides giving theif testimony and for non-native English speakers, it is a task
trying to commurticatO and the anxiety'of coming to the podium, so he would like to thank everyone. There are two
main topics; topic of traffic,and topic of incense smoke. He thinks the applicants would like to go above and beyond in
term a ofpprking. The code`re�uires siz spaces and the applicant would like provide seven.
Chair Dang asked Assistant Plannef,Lao if the code allows for tandem parking stalls.
Assistant Plann6f. Lazo answers thaf tandem parking is only permitted for single-family parking garages and tandem
parking stalls in comrpefcial is prohibited
Chair Deng stated that he:understands the congregate are trying to reach out to the community and doing their best,
but for this property, everything is maximized. He expressed thanks to Mr. Su for offering his parking and that it would
create another violation, but they appreciate his efforts to help. Chair Deng stated that there are too many variables
against this proposal, even with the smoke, he did not realize there were barriers along the side property line. The
proposal stated that there would be four events a year and the code only allows for three events, and these events
would bring up the same issues and the same questions for the applicant as to how the congregate will mitigate these
issues. They would need to provide evidence as to how they will mitigate these and the same issues will rise.
Chair Deng asked if Planning Commission is ready to motion.
16
Vice -Chair Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to deny Conditional Use Permit 16.08.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Dang, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Eng
Community Development Director Kim stated the motion to deny the conditional use permit passes with a vote of 4
Ayes and 0 Noes. He also explained the 10 -day appeal process.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of 11-6.17
Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by
presented.
Vote resulted in:
Yes:
No:
Abstain:
Absent:
Community Development
5. MATTERS FROM
Community
Planning Cc
Dang, Herrera,
None
None
Eng
interesf�d in learning. If the,S
agenda sgch as ADU, massa
Chair Dangasked are these
amendments, Ifkalihe ADU ar
ted "there are,no matters from staff at this time, but had a question for the
of other cities ['have worked at have had topical questions at every Planning
iw legislation coming down the pipe that the Planning Commission may be
las interest we can select a topic and put a quick discussion item, on the
EQA, or any other questions that Commissioners may have.
visible for the public or as Commissioners may we view drafts of
Community Developmerrt,Director Kim answers any code amendment pertaining to the zoning code will come to
Planning Commission and recommendation to the council. However, when the planning commission
when staff is aware of items that are being discussed at the state level that we would need to bring to the Planning
Commission or council in the future, we can provide an update or a summary so the commission is aware that certain
items are being discussed.
Chair Dang responded with the question, the first visual of it will be at the council and there is no draft?
Community Development Director Kim answers correct.
6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS
17
Commissioner Herrera answers no matters at this time and wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Dang adjourned the meeting at 9:13 pm.
The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, December 4, 2017 at 7:00 pm in
the Council Chambers.
Sean Dang
Chair
ATTEST:
Rachel Lockwood
Commission Secretary
IM
Attachment E
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 217, 2017
(without attachments which are on file with the City Clerk's
Office for review)
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2017
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-08
7516 EMERSON PLACE
Summary
On November 20, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for Conditional
Use Permit 16-08, a request to establish a place of religious assembly at 7516 Emerson
Place. After considering all testimony and facts available, the Planning Commission
voted to deny Conditional Use Permit 16-08, which resulted in a vote of four ayes, with
Commissioner Eng absent. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a
resolution (attached as Exhibit "A") for the denial of Conditional Use Permit 16-08 and
directed staff to bring back the resolution for adoption. The November 20, 2017
Planning Commission staff report and attachments, including the recommended
approval resolution, are included in this report as Exhibit "B" for reference.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider Resolution No. 17-22 as
attached.
Public Notice Process
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Prepared by:
Annie Lao
Assistant Planner
EXHIBITS:
Submitted by:
Ben
Community Development Director
A. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 17-22
B. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 20, 2017, including attachments.
Attachment F
Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-22
PC RESOLUTION 17-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-08 FOR THE OPERATION
OF A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY. THE SUBJECT SITE IS
LOCATED AT 7516 EMERSON PLACE (APN: 5286-017-004), IN A
LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE.
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016, Ky Do and Binh Vinh Tran submitted a
Conditional Use Permit, requesting to operate a place of religious assembly at 7516
Emerson Place;
WHEREAS, 7516 Emerson Place, is located in a Light Multiple Residential (R-2)
zoning district;
WHEREAS, Section 17.132.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the
findings necessary for a Conditional Use Permit to be approved;
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2017, 44 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 16-08;
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional
Use Permit 16-08; 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
findings to approve Conditional Use Permit 16-08 cannot be made, 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 will be incompatible or injurious to other properties or land uses in the vicinity
as it is surrounded by single-family homes and is in close proximity to Ralph Waldo
Emerson Elementary. In addition, the place of religious assembly will also be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood due to
traffic, noise, and odor.
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 16-08, a request to permit the
operation of a place of religious assembly at 7516 Emerson Place.
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 November 27, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES:
DANG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, AND TANG
NOES:
NONE
ABSTAIN:
NONE
ABSENT:
ENG
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall
transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 27th day of November, 2017.
Sean Dang, 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 27th day of
November, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES:
DANG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, AND TANG
NOES:
NONE
ABSTAIN:
NONE
ABSENT:
ENG
Ben, Kim Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
Attachment G
Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated
November 27, 2017
Minutes of the
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 27, 2017
The special meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Deng in the City Hall Council
Chambers located at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Eng
INVOCATION — Chair Dang
ROLL CALL — Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Lopez, Vice -Chair Tang and ChairDang
STAFF PRESENT - City Attorney Thuyen, Community Development Director k assistant Planner Lao, and
Commission Secretary Lockwood.
1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND
City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal igl ts,of the
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Bob Bruesch, resident, stated their mailboxes had*beenTobbed where he'resides over the weekend. He stated there
are 16 neighbors that share a common box and would like fo,request a mailbox at each residence instead of one at
the end of their street. He asked what the process &to request a,separate mailbox at each residence. He explained
he had been a Council Member when this development was guilt and designated'as a Planned Development zone
because of the small lots. He haicontaeted the posYOffice„but has not'ieceived any information. He asked if they
would need to appear before the.Plann nd.Cbmmisslon to:request a zone change to accomplish their mailbox request.
Community Developmenf4irector Kim rephed;'he will research;,his request and will contact him as soon as he has the
information.
3.
Planning Commission meeting he requested that City Attorney Thuyen
give din ion on what
City Attorney 7huyen explained that Item 3, Public Hearing is indicated, but is incorrect, because there are no Public
Hearing items, and recommended ttre Chair move on to Item 4.A. He reminded everyone that for Resolution 17-22 a
public hearing was previously held; allowed public testimony at that time to which it was received, and the public hearing
was closed. He addedat.this time i there are public comments, it should be limited to the approval of the Resolution
that is before the Planning i,*mission today.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. RESOLUTION NO. 17.22 — Conditional Use Permit 16.08 to establish a place or religious assembly at
7516 Emerson Place. The Planning Commission will consider adopting a resolution denying or
approving the said Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Eng announced that she had conferred with City Attorney Thuyen about this item and recused herself
because this item is in her neighborhood. She added even though she is beyond the 500 foot radius, for the propriety
purpose, she is recusing herself from this matter, but she will be speaking as a resident in the neighborhood.
Chair Dang thanked Commissioner Eng and requested that staff present the item.
Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report.
Chair Dang asked the Planning Commissioners if they had any questions or comments for staff.
Commissioner Lopez stated the Planning Commission is back to square one. He asked the City Attorney if there will
be public comment or will the Planning Commission be making a motion for the item to remain denied.
City Attorney Thuyen thanked Commissioner Lopez for his comments. He
reopened for public testimony, the purpose here is based on the previous PI
was a motion to move for denial of Conditional Use Permit 16-08. He statE
Resolution with the findings to support that denial and public comment wile
reiterated that public comment would not be open, since it was closed at the
Commissioner Lopez stated that they are basically looking for a,rnotion to accept the
that the religious assembly be denied and asked if that was correct.
City Attorney Thuyen replied that is correct, but there a
comment period is allowed for this decision.
Vice -Chair Tang asked the City Attorney sine
he see this as a risk, or is there any precedent
City Attorney Thuyen replied
testimony about whether or n
facts to be presented at thi 'I
meeting is just bring backMa'
that meeting.
Vice -Chair
public hearing will not be
fission meeting where there
today is to bring back the
discussion on that item. He
permit to establish
to that step, because the public
has been;presented, from a legal standpoint, does
lanning Commission denying this project.
of th6dast Planning Commission meeting for this item was to take
conditional,use�permit. He sfated he is not sure if there are any new
neetmg there was a motion to vote for denial, so the purpose of this
eke sure that,resolution has findings consistent with the discussion at
if they filled out a speakers request for this item.
City Attorney,Thuyenreplied yes 4era is an opportunity for public comment, but the public hearing will not be
reooeneihfor this item. He=added that'oublic comment will be allowed for discussion on this resolution before the
Vice -Chair Tafi6. asked if the Planning Commissioners will also be able to have some dialog based on the comments
from the public they be moving; right into adopting.
City Attorney Thuyen eXplainEtd,ttiat they are not opening the public testimony period for the residents in terms of
resident concerns or things of teat nature. He stated it is really about this resolution and whether it is in the form that
is in consistent with the Planning Commissions deliberations with the last Planning Commission meeting and whether
the Planning Commission should adopt it.
Vice -Chair Tang stated that he doubts that the outcome will change, he just wants to make sure before he votes this
from a legal standpoint and if they can have that discussion, that is fine. He added that the discussion will take place
during the City Council level.
City Attorney Thuyen stated in terms of just public hearing or public testament on whether to grant or deny the
conditional use permit, that period was held at the last Planning Commission meeting, and the public hearing was
closed at that time.
Chair Dang stated from what he understands the Planning Commission is here to vote on the resolution and this
resolution was an instruction to staff from the last meeting to bring back. He asked if this was correct.
City Attorney Thuyen replied yes.
Chair Dang thanked staff and stated because this is a Special Planning Commission meeting and for clarity, requested
that the City Attorney give some instruction to the public before speaker requests are called up to the podium.
City Attorney Thuyen reiterated that there has been a public hearing and a public testimony period for this item at the
last hearing, at which the Planning Commission had directed staff to bring back a resolution that had contained the
findings discussed by the Planning Commission for a denial of the conditional use per11 mit. Public comment today would
be limited to any public comment on the Planning Commission's adoption of that resolution.
Chair Dang thanked the City Attorney and called the first speaker.
William Su, thanked everybody and stated he is here to urge -the P
regarding this establishment. He stated the temple is willing to acc
ring Commission to reconsider their decision
any conditions that theCity_would like them
(and address issuesthot the Mak family
operation to 10:00 am to`� 00 pm., to help
ted the applicant is willing to work with the
for the seniors and members to come and
e. He added that he hopes the Mak family
ted everybody works five days a week and
snot a, member of this temple, he was a
stated they had communicated with their
n for the opportunity to speak.
to comply with. He stated they are willing to follow limitations made by the
has brought up such as smoke, incense, traffic, and to change fhe hours p
with traffic and parents picking up their children from school at 2:30.,- KE4t
City and the Mak family. They are a non-profit,organization. They are herr
meet on the weekends. They are not here for ariy,-profit of any other pulp
will try to compromise and agree to let them havethis establishment. He a
this gives them a chance to meet on the weekends and even` though he
former president of another association, and they tlo the same Nnd.,,Hi
neighbors and compromises wererri`ad , He thanked the PJaing Co nm
Ky Do, thanked the Planning Commission for their decisldri-at the previous Planning Commission meeting. He stated
Mr. William Su has made�ifuery clear for him,so he does notltaveany more comments.
David E. Brockway, thanked eyeryohe, and"4e terated .the''willingness of this particular association to try to
work with the CAmmunity.and everyone to try to stay in the neighborhood. He stated he would like to indicate that it has
often been" the`"case with many churchds,and temples to start out in homes, houses, assembling in neighborhoods to
get started; `and often confiri e6jhat way,fgr a period of time, and this is no exception. He stated they would like to
contthua in this neighborhood it -'they have been for 25 years. He said it has been indicated if the school hours are a
problem thertemple is willing to change the hours of operation from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm, during the week. He stated
as far as the fee=stays, those could also be changed and the special permits and conditions that the City would impose
on the association Would be appropriately dealt with. He added that they would like to ask the community to give them
a chance to confthe Citv.
Richard Mak, introduced hIs"father Charn Man Mak, and stated they have been living at the same location for 37
years. He thanked the Planning Commission for their time during the holidays to spend two plus hours plus last
Monday. He gave a perspective of their history with the said neighbor/temple. He stated they are Asian and his dad
is an immigrant, but he was born and raised in Rosemead, he went to Emerson School, Garvey School, and Mark
Keppel High, and they love this community. When this organization bought this property in 1991, his dad would always
talk to the applicant and they would tell his dad that this is not a temple. He added they had been taught not to shake
any leaves, keep to ourselves, or don't rock the boat. His mother would tell them things would take care of themselves
and to not do anything. He stated his sister and himself have a different attitude and would always urge them to file a
complaint and his mom would stop him and his dad would always say let him talk to them. He added that is how it has
been for the past 25 years and when the organization acquired the property in "1995," it was not a very successful
temple, there were not that many people there. He said he does not know what happened, but maybe they needed to
make money or not. They started renting the facility out to play Mah-jong and cards in the back. He added there were
people smoking and loitering in front of the temple and then his parents got scared because they felt there was a weird
organization behind that, but they didn't do anything. He stated that someone did call and complain and overtime and
in the year "2000," the hands of the organization changed again. This time, the new manager was very successful and
there were a lot more people coming, so successful, that they started cooking and serving food for the last two years
in the back yard. On their Facebook page, they call themselves a Chinese restaurant and this last year, there is
Karaoke and singing for four or five hours on the weekends. He stated the reason they are telling the Planning
Commission this is because they do not want to rock the boat and he cannot tell you how many people thanked him
last week that had watched the video of this meeting. He stated they just want the community to be quiet and he
wanted to give the history because he wants them to see that this is not a simple tenant asking for permission to be a
temple. He added there have been a lot of other activities going on there and they havOeen illegally operating without
permits and that is the frustration they have been dealing with for the last 20 plus, years. He thanked the Planning
Commission for their time and on behalf of his dad too, because his English is riot that great.
City Attorney Thuyen reminded the members of the audience that they are not having public comment to do new
findings or facts and they are limiting the findings to the item on hand�hich is to adopt this resolution.
Howard E. Mattern, resident applauded the Planning Commission
meeting and commented it was the right one. He stated the applicai
did not conform to anything that was asked in the last 20 years r,
example that had been approved and the problems they had with
were parking problems there too. He expressed that this is not t
because they have other options, they have other temples in the
out. He added there is also a large property on Dej Mar between En
stated their plot, their land, is just not the right plac@.for a temple at
Nancy Eng, resident stated thatthIsisherneighborhoo
there since the year "2000'' She"viewed,the last Plai
Commission's wisdom to ddnq the conditional -,use perr
Planning Commission for!protecting the residents, the
students at Emerson Schooj:'
r their decision at the last`Plartning Commission
has shown that they are not responsible and they
stated that he had used another church as an
at gari extend to this one also. He stated there
keep a religious organization out of Rosemead,
rea that they can probably join, or rent a space
rson and Hellman that would be ideal for this. He
khatis the main argument there.
alf a black away°from her residence, and she has been
ommission meeting online and supports the Planning
resolution, and trusts their judgment. She thanked the
orhood, the quality of life, and the health safety of the
Brian Lewin, r4i dent commented thaf f is interesting thatthe applicant has stated they will follow all the rules and
conditionsA?dcause it istoo<bad they were not doing that before. He thanked the Planning Commission for unanimously
acting ai Wtalf of the residents�for protecting them from having an inappropriate use being formally situated in their
neighborhood and by their sck8dii ,,He alsa,fhanked the Planning Commission for showing respect, and support, for
the Putik Safety Division and CodetEnforcement, who has worked very hard dealing with this site and the applicant's
noncomplian�caMe stated he has a few of questions pertaining to why they are here this evening, that he might get
answers for, if "p'ossible. First, he asked if the City is ultimately required to approve this use operating in this specific
location or does it le ahy,have themiscretion to refuse to allow it to operate there. Second, was the City legally required,
considering there's a:regularly;seheduled meeting that would occur next week, to schedule a Special Planning
Commission meeting fortonght to consider the resolution to deny the conditional use permit. He added that the
announcement went out late "afternoon before the busiest weekend of the year, when no one is paying attention to
anything. He stated if the City was required to do so, he is curious to why, and if not why is this meeting being held
tonight instead of next week. He thanked the Planning Commission again for their consideration and wise judgment.
Corrine Martin, resident stated she has seen Rosemead go through changes. She added she is trying to purchase a
home on the north side, but it is probably more money, so she is trying to buy on the south side. She expressed
if temples are being built and taking away homes, how does that help a person that is trying to look for housing. She
stated she had gone by the facility recently and saw all the cooking supplies, tables, and heaters, so she knows
something is going on. She added there was a home on Del Mar, across from the Pizza Hut, and it was turned into a
temple, so it looks like homes are being taken away and they are building temples for religion. She stated that there
is so much property to sell in the area and if the members got together, they could purchase property to build their
temple. She expressed she does not want to see the community change and would like to see it remain as residential
area. She added no one ever looks at south side they pay attention to the north side. She requested that the Planning
Commission not approve this item and it should remain housing and not temples.
Chair Deng asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor or against this item.
None
Chair Deng closed the Public Comment session and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further
comments or questions before a motion is made.
None
Chair Dang thanked everyone and he applauds everyone for taking
final resolution, and for their public comments. He asked the City Aft
tonight is to vote yes or no on the resolution.
City Attorney Thuyen replied yes, and reminded the Planning gomrr
resolution that the Planning Commission had motioned at the previ
conditional use permit, even though they may have heard some new
also reminded the Planning Commission that the public hearing con
findings with the comments that were presented=af,the time of the
reiterated that tonight's decision is whether or not -}o adoptlheresolr
Planning Commission has any other direction on that.
Community Develi
Ayes, 0 Noes, and
5. MATTERS FROM STAFF
nye off to attdgd;this meeting, to listen to the
to clarify if the Plan'rTg Commission's action
they are considering` the adoption of this
,ening Commission meeting to deny the
;rent facts from the comment period. He
period has been closed and to limit their
g when public testimony was open. He
>hying the conditional use permit or if the
Herrera, to approve adopting a resolution
i stated the motion to deny the conditional use permit passes with a vote of 4
explained the 10 -day appeal process.
Community Development Director Kim announced the date, time, and location of two upcoming City events. 1) The
Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony and 2) Dinner with Santa.
6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS
Chair Dang stated he would like to thank the Planning Commission for coming together this evening, it was a difficult
decision. He also thanked Commissioner Eng for stepping down, it was a controversial site, and appreciated her fore -
thoughts and looking out for the Planning Commission.
Community Development Director Kim announced that the next regular Planning Commission on Monday, December
4, 2017, will be cancelled for lack of items and the next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday,
December 18, 2017.
Commissioner Eng asked if there is an upcoming workshop.
Community Development Director Kim replied yes, and there will be a joint workshop`on'^December 12, 2017, with City
Council, the Beautification Committee, the Traffic Commission, and Planning „commission regarding the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan at 5:00 pm.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Dang adjourned the meeting at 7:45 pm.
The next regular Planning Commission meeting
cancelled.
The next regular Planning Commission
the Council Chambers.
ATTEST:
4, 2017, at 7:00 pm will be
will be held,on Monday, December 18, 2017 at 7:00 pm in
Attachment H
Mayor Pro Tem Ly's Request for Review Letter, dated
November 28, 2017
November 28, 2017
Marc Donahue
City Clerk, City of Rosemead
8838 E Valley Blvd
Rosemead, CA 91770
Mr. Donahue:
I am exercising my responsibility as a Councilman to Request for Review for Conditional Use Permit 16-
08 and PC Resolution 17-22 under Rosemead Municipal Code 17.160.060. 1 do not believe that the
Planning Commission fully evaluated all land use and legal considerations involved.
Further based off the audience testimony, I request that we make available a Vietnamese translator for
public comment purposes so we are compliant with our translating practices.
Please place this item as early and quickly as legally possible onto the Rosemead City Council Agenda so
the matter may be resolved for everyone's sake as speedily and judiciously.
Respectfully,
Steven Ly
Councilman
City of Rosemead
CC: Polly Low, Mayor
Sandra Armenta, Councilmember
Margaret Clark, Councilmember
William Alarcon, Councilmember
William Manis, City Manager
Ben Kim, Director of Community Development
Lily Valenzuela, City Planner
Annie Lao, Assistant Planner
Rosemead Planning Commissionxc
Attachment I
Written Testimony for the Planning Commission Meeting on
November 20, 2017
6 o"O
Ai
oT i c
t'O F
Ni
MZY
�t L,) f-/ 0 L 15'
�-7� 1 - -,"/) (� -,
c ( /"-) /� n/ A , P �',/ � /
Attachment J
Written Testimony for the Planning Commission Meeting on
November 20, 2017
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting — Nov 27, 2017
Comments from Nancy Eng, as Resident
Public Hearing Item 3B—CUP 16-08, 7516 Emerson Place
I am unable to attend meeting in person but would like to submit written comments.
My family resides on Jackson Ave., about half a block from 7516 Emerson Place,
approximately 528 SF feet which is beyond the 300 SF public notice requirement. In the
interest of any possible perception of conflict of interest, I elect to recuse myself in the
deliberation and action on this item as a Planning Commissioner but would like to share
my thoughts as a resident having resided in the neighborhood since 2000.
This property has been operating as a temple for a number of years, for as long I can
remember. I was under the impression that it had the appropriate permit for the use.
Currently, there are four Buddhist Temples" (five counting 7516 Emerson PI), that are
within 3-5 minutes walking distance, and another potential temple (site of a former
church'), coming into the neighborhood, also on Emerson Place (two blocks east of
7516).
This neighborhood is predominately multi -family residences, with multiple cars so
parking is a big challenge. Also, the property is located by/next to Emerson Elementary
School with no parking area for parents to drop off/pick up students, and parents
regularly park illegally in the alley, residents' driveways, or blocking driveways. Without
mitigation, the use of a place of religious assembly in a single family residence property
will exacerbate the parking headaches for the neighborhood.
Our homes are our sanctuaries that we return to be with our families, rest after work
and on the weekends. To protect the rights of residents in the neighborhood to be able
to comfortably enjoy and access their properties, it is very important, if the CUP is
approved, that it provides practical operational conditions to mitigate parking, noise and
smell issues. Suggest the Planning Commission consider the following improvements to
the Conditions of Approval:
Parking:
For ceremonial events in which the parking requirement will exceed the number of
onsite parking provided, require a shared parking agreement to be filed with the city to
accommodate the additional parking needed.
Noise:
-Ceremonial activities be limited to the interior of the dwelling structure, or obtain
special events permit for activities in which attendance will exceed the room capacity of
the assembly room.
-installation of double pane windows
Smell:
-use of led incense sticks in place of regular burning incense sticks.
COA 20 and 21. The standards under Rosemead Noise Ordinance, the South Coast Air
Quality Management District and California Air Resources Board were established to
address noise and pollution issues generated mostly by machines. Due to the nature of
religious ceremonies, the activities most likely will not violate these standards.
However, the activities in large volume/intensity do have material impact as a nuisance
to the neighbors' ability to enjoy their homes.
It is important to keep in mind that 7516 Emerson PI was originally developed as a single
family residence, along with adjacent properties.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Nancy Eng, Resident on Jackson Ave.
**Neighborhood temple locations: 1. Next to Garvey Park on Emerson PI (7833 Emerson
PI. ), 2) Del Mar and Fern (2755 Del Mar Ave) , 3) Del Mar and Garvey (3027 Del Mar
Ave), and 4) Garvey and New Ave. (129 New Ave.)
***7716 Emerson Place
Attachment K
Packet distributed to the Planning Commission on
November 20, 2017
Public Commission Hearing
Conditional Use Permit re:
7516 Emerson Place
November 20th at 7pm
1
Permit = Temple = Smoke around kids
• The religious assembly will be:
1. A Temple burning commercial grade INCENSE in a residential zone and
2. A RESTAURANT operation in the backyard
• The temple/restaurant will be 158 feet away from Ralph Waldo
Emerson School
• The new temple/restaurant will provide ZERO benefits to the
community and will only do harm
z
What is 7516 Emerson Place?
• 7516 Emerson Place is listed as Binh Dinh Association
-•rr �.� . -• 0
MwimWPIM
A r r : 1 66
• Most of the photos in this presentation is from their facebook page.
• The photos will show that they are already operating as a place of worship
and as a restaurant without the proper permits
3
Temple Activities at 7516 Emerson Place
From their facebook page
7516 Emerson Place conducting temple
activities
From their facebook page
7516 Emerson looks like a Temple
From their facebook page
Backyard Restaurant at 7516 Emerson Place
From their facebook page
Full Staff to operate the restaurant for lines of
people at 7516 Emerson Place
From their facebook page
G
7516 Emerson's backyard is a covered seating
area for the restaurant (light bulbs on top)
From their facebook page
The proposed Temple is 158 feet away from
Ralph Waldo Emerson School
Proposed Temple
Terson School
ves roughly 520 elementa
dents each year pre-schoc
6th grade
to
No Tobacco use is permitted on school
grounds — and the temple will be 158 ft away
11
Incense burning will cause smoke
From their facebook page
iz
The smoke is so bad, they built a wall barrier
13
The smoke is so bad, they built a wall barrier
14
Zero benefits: INCENSE IS BAD FOR KIDS
Incense smoke is bad for kids. South China University of Technology
study in 2015 shows that incense smoke is worse than cigarette smoke
and leads to a higher chance of cancer.
Link to report: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377255/
15
Zero benefits: There are already 4 temples
within %2 mile from the proposed temple
• Boca Dhamra Seal Temple (3027 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead CA)
• Chua Xa Loui Temple (2751— 2755 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead CA)
• Los Angeles Buddhist Union (7833 Emerson Place, Rosemead CA)
• Buddha Monastery Support (129 New Avenue, Monterey Park CA)
16
Zero benefits: Increased traffic & parking near
a school —the temple has no parking spaces
, a'.., t maw =
17
Negative Ramifications for the City:
• Lost of property tax revenues since religious entities are exempt from
taxes; No sales tax or business tax for the city
• The smoke and traffic will stop new families from moving into the
community since the temple is close to the school.
• This opens the door for more temple permits near schools — which
leads to increased traffic and parking congestions near schools.
• More than 50% of homes around the neighborhood are renters and
they said they will simply move out of the city.
is
Lets end with facts and only facts.
Facts:
1. Smoke is bad for children and incense smoke is even worse than
cigarette smoke as a University study has shown on slide 15.
2. Incense smoke from the temple will be 158 feet away from Emerson
School — 3 homes away from a school
3. There is already 4 temples within % mile radius of the proposed
temple — do we need another one to be next to a school
4. Zero known benefits to have a temple next to a school. Traffic and
parking congestion will increase next to Emerson school.
19
Attachment L
Packet distributed to the Planning Commission on
November 27, 2017
i;=', s,
}� l
Q0,re a/'lhe ABSi.fIanIAlmmoT General
U.S. Department of .Tustice
Civil Rights Division
19v.,'Bin,Iqlon, D.C. 20530
December 15, 2016
Re: The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
Dear State, County, and Municipal Officials:
I am writing to you today to highlight the obligation ofpublic officials to comply with the
various provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and
to inform you about documents previously issued by the Department of Justice (Department) that
may be of assistance to you in understanding and applying this important Federal civil rights law.
The freedom to practice religion according to the dictates of one's conscience is among
our most fundamental rights, written into our Constitution and protected by our laws. In our
increasingly diverse nation, the Department continues to steadfastly defend this basic freedom
and ensure that all people may live according to then beliefs, free of discrimination, harassment,
or persecution.
Over the years Congress has passed a number of laws that protect the religious liberties
of those who live in America, including the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1996
Church Arson Prevention Act. In 2000 Congress, by unanimous consent, and with the support of
a broad range of civil rights and re_gious organizations, enacted the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000ce et seq. In enacting RLUIPA, Congress
determined that there was a need for Federal legislation to protect religious individuals and
institutions from unduly burdensome, unreasonable or discriminatory zoning, landmarking, and
other land use regulations.' Congress heard testimony that houses of worship, particularly those
of minority religions and start-up churches, were disproportionately affected, and in fact often
were actively discriminated against, by local land use decisions. Congress also found that, as a
whole, religious institutions were treated worse than secular places of assembly like community
centers, fraternal organizations, and movie theaters, and that zoning authorities frequently
violated the United States Constitution by placing excessive burdens on the ability of
congregations to exercise then faiths.
' RLUIPA also contains provisions that prohibit regulations that impose a "substantial burden" on the religious
exercise of persons residing or confined in an "institution," unless the government can show that the regulation
serves a "compelling government interest" and is the least restrictive way for the government to further that interest.
42 U.S.0 § 2000co-1.
RLUIPA includes a private right of action, which allows private individuals to enforce its
provisions. Congress also gave the U.S. Attorney General the authority to enforce RLUIPA, and
the Department ofJustice has been active in enforcing this important civil rights law since its
enactment. To date ttohe Department has opened nearly 100 formal investigations and filed
neart 20 tay� is related RLUII'A's land useProvisior�s.2 Through thew efforts, as well as
those by private parties, RLUIPA has helped secure the ability of thousands of individuals and
institutions to practice their faiths freely and without discrimination.
Yet, sixteen years after RLUIPA's enactment, far too many people and communities
remain unaware of the law, or do not fully understand the scope of its provisions. Earlier this
year, the Department's Civil Rights Division launched Combating Religious Discrimination
Today, an initiative bringing together community leaders around the country to discuss
challenges regarding religious discrimination, religion -based hate crimes, and religious freedom,
and to discuss possible solutions. One of the issues raised repeatedly from participants was that
municipal, county, and other state and local officials are insufficientl f ar with the land use
provisions o 1P and their obligations under this Federal civil ri ht� s law. Participants also
reporte a oases o worship, parttcularTy�hoae 1 om less familiar religious haditions, often
face unlawful barriers in the zoning andbuilding process. Additionally, participants explained
that, in their experience, litigation frequently was avoided when the communities informed local
officials of their obligations under RLUIPA early in the process. Participants recommended that
the Department take proactive measures to ensure that state and local officials are properly
educated about RLUIPA's land use provisions a
In light of this, we are sending this letter to you and other officials throughout the
country to remind you about the key provisions of RLUIPA. Ensuring that our constitutional
protections of religious freedom are protected requires that Federal, state, and local officials
work together, and to that end, we encourage you to share this letter with your colleagues. We
hope that you will continue to work with the Department of Justice going forward and view us as
a partner and ally in ensuring that no individuals m this country suffer discrimination or unlawful
treatment simply because of their faiths.
2 This work is detailed inreports on enforcement issued in September 2010 (available at
hhm s'/twww justice gov/crt/rluiva report 092210,dfl and July 2016 (available at
]Lqs://www.austice.-ov/eitifile/877931/dowaload .
s The Combating Religious Discrimination Today reportis available. at
Ids'//www iustice eov/Combating Religious Discrimination.
1. RLUIPA provides broad protections for religious individuals and institutions.
RLUIPA's land use provisions provide a number of protections for places of worship,
faith -based social service providers and religious schools, and individuals using land for
religious purposes. Specifically, RLUIPA provides for:
Protection against substantial burdens on religious exercise: Section 2(a) of RLUIPA
prohibits the implementation of any land use regulation that imposes a "substantial
burden" on the religious exercise of a person or institution except where justified by a
"compelling government interest" that the government pursues using the least restrictive
means.
o Protection against unequal treatmentfor religious assemblies and institutions: Section
2(b)(1) of RLUIPA provides that religious assemblies and institutions must be treated at
least as well as nonreligious assemblies and institutions.
• Protection against religious or denominational discrimination: Section 2(b)(2) of
RLUIPA prohibits discrimination "against any assembly or institution on the basis of
religion or religious denomination."
® Protection against total exclusion of religious assemblies: Section 2(b)(3)(A) of
RLUIPA provides that government must not totally exclude religious assemblies from a
jurisdiction.
e Protection against unreasonable limitation of religious assemblies: Section 2(b)(3)(B) of
RLUIPA provides that government must not unreasonably limit "religious assemblies,
institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction."
While the majority of RLUIPA cases involve places of worship such as churches,
synagogues, mosques, and temples, the law is written broadly to cover a wide range of religious
uses. The "substantial burden" provision in Section 2(a) of the statute applies to burdens on "a
person, including a religious assembly or institution." The remaining provisions apply to any
religious "assembly or institution." Thus, RLUIPA applies widely not only to diverse places of
worship, but also to religious schools, religious camps, religious retreat centers, and religious
social service facilities such as group homes, homeless shelters, and soup kitchens, as well as to
individuals exercising their religion through use of property, such as home prayer gatherings or
Bible studies:
To be clear, RLUIPA does not provide.a blanket exemption from local zoning or
landmarking laws. Rather, it contains a number of safeguards to prevent discriminatory,
unreasonable, or unjustifiably burdensome regulations from hindering religious exercise.
Ordinarily, before seeking recourse from RL,UIPA, those seeking approval for a religious land
4 Section 2 of RLUIPA is codified at 42 U.S.0 $ 2000ce,
use will have to apply for permits or zoning relief according to the regular procedures set forth in
the applicable ordinances, unless doing so would be futile, or the regular procedures are
discriminatory or create an unjustifiable burden. While zoning is primarily a local matter, where
it conflicts with Federal civil rights laws such as the Fair Housing Act or RLUIPA, Federal law
Each of the aforementioned protections in RLUIPA are discussed in greater detail
below.S
2. RLUIPA protects against unjustified burdens on religious exercise.
Land use regulations frequently can impede the ability of religious institutions to carry
out their mission of serving the religious needs of their members. Section 2(a) of RLUIPA bars
imposition of land use regulations that create a "substantial burden" on the religious exercise of a
person or institution, unless the government can show that it has a "compelling interest" for
imposing the regulation and that the regulation is the least restrictive way for the government to
further that interest. A_mere ineonvenieneo to the person or religious institution is not sufficient,
but a burden that is substantial may violate RLUIPA. For example, in a case in which the United
States filed a ME -o - e -court brief in support of a Maryland church's challenge to a rezoning
denial, a Federal appeals court ruled that the church had "presented considerable evidence that its
current facilities inadequately serve its needs," and that the "delay, uncertainty and expense" in
looking for a different property may create a substantial burden on the church's religious
exercise in violation of RLUIPA.' The count relied on facts including that the church had to hold
multiple services, turn away worshipers, and curtail a number of important activities at its current
location, and that it had a reasonable expectation that it could develop its new property.
Similarly, the Department of Justice filed suit in a California Federal district court alleging that a
city's denial of zoning approval for a mosque to take down the aging and inadequate structures in
which it had been worshipping and construct a new facility imposed a substantial burden on the
congregation.' The mosque, which was grandfathered for its current use, consisted of a group of
repurposed buildings for its various activities and a large tent for overflow from the prayer hall.
However, the city prohibited the mosque from replacing the buildings and tent with a single
building. The case was resolved by a consent decree in Federal court.
If imposition of a zoning or landmarking law creates a substantial burden on religious
exercise, such imposition is invalid unless it is supported by a compelling governmental interest
pursued through the least restrictive means. RLUIPA does not define "compelling interest," but
' Further information may be found in the Statement of the Department ofdustice on Land Use Provisions ofthe
Religious Land Use and Institutionalised Persons Act (available at httns://www justice gov/crt/rluipa q a 9-22-
t o.ndf.), and at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division RLUIPA information page
6 Bethel World Oun•each x Montgomery. Cnty. Council, 706 F.3d 548,557-558 (4th Cir. 2013).
i United States v. Lomita, No. 2:13 -CV -00707 (E.D. Cal. filed March 3,2Q13).
4
the U.S. Supreme Court has previously explained that compelling interests are "interests of the
highest order." s
3. RLUIPA protects equal'access for religious institutions and assemblies.
Section 2(b)(1) of RLUIPA — known as the "equal terms" provision —mandates. that
religious assemblies and institutions be treated at least as well as nonreligious assemblies and
institutions. For example, a Federal appeals court ruled that zoning restrictions that a city
applied to places of worship but not to lodges, union halls, nightclubs, and other assemblies,
violated the equal terms provision? This included a requirement that places of worship, but not
other assembly uses, obtain the permission of 60% of neighbors in a 1,300 -foot radius. The
Department of Justice filed a friend -of -the -court brief arguing that the distinction violated
RLUIPA. Similarly, the Department brought suit under RLUIPA's equal terms provision against
a town in Illinois that permitted clubs, lodges, meeting halls, and theaters in its business districts,
but excluded places of worship. ' u The case was prompted after the town served notice of
violation on four small churches operating in locations where these nonreligious assembly uses
were permitted. The case was resolved by consent decree.
4. RLUIPA protects against religious discrimination inland use.
Section 2(b)(2) of RLUIPA bars discrimination "against any assembly or institution on
the basis of religion or religious denomination." Thus if an applicant is treated differently in a
zoning or landmarking process because of the religion represented (e.g., Christian, Jewish,
Muslim), or because of the particular denomination or sect to which the applicant belongs (e.g.,
Catholic, Or Jewish, or Shia Muslim), then RLUIPA will be violated. The Department of
Justice filed suit alleging that a mosque in Georgia was discriminated against in violation of
Section 2(b)(2), based on statements by city officials indicating bias, evidence that the city
sought to appease citizens who had expressed bias, and evidence that the city had previously
approved numerous similarly sized.and located places of worship of other faiths.11 The case was
resolved by consent decree. Similarly, the Department filed suit in order to challenge a zoning
change enacted by a New York municipality that prevented the construction of a Hasidic Jewish
boarding school. t2 The case was resolved by consent decree.
s Church ofthe Lukumt BabaluAye, Inc. v. City ofHialeah, 508 U.S. 520,546 (1993).
v Opulent Life Church a City of Holly Springs, 697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2012).
° United States v. Waukegan, No. 08-C-1013N(N.D.111. filedNbruary 19, 2008).
United&atesv. CityofLilburn 1:11 -CV -2871 (ND. Ga. filedAuguA29, 2011).
" United States v. Village ofAirmont, 05 Civ. 5520 (S.D,N.Y filed June 10, 2005).
5. RLU EP'A protects against the total or unreasonable exclusion of religious assemblies
from a jurisdiction.
Under section 2(b)(3) of RLUIPA, a zoning code may not completely, or unreasonably,
limit religious assemblies in a jurisdiction. Thus,.if there is no place where houses of worship
are permitted to locate, or the zoning regulations looked at as a whole deprive religious
institutions of reasonable opportunities to build or locate in the jurisdiction, this provision will be
violated. For example, a Federal district court in Florida granted summary judgment to a
synagogue on its unreasonable limitations claim, holding that >LZJ UIPA was violated where
"there was limited availability of nrooerty for the location of religious assemblies,Rliious
assemblies were subject to inflated costs in order to locate in the Cil
were subject to more stringent requirements than other similar uses.
The Department of Justice is committed to carrying out Congress's mandate and ensuring
that religious assemblies. and institutions do not suffer from discriminatory or unduly
burdensome land use regulations. We look forward to working collaboratively with you and all
other stakeholders on these important issues. Should you have questions about the contents of
this letter, or other issues related to RLUIPA, I encourage you to contact Eric Treene, Special
Counsel for Religious Discrimination, at 202.514.2228 or Eric.Treene@USDOJ.gov.
sincerely,
Vamta Gupta
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
13 Chahad ofNova, Inc. v. City of Cooper City, 575 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2008).
6
Attachment M
Packet submitted to the City Clerk's Office on
December 6, 2017
Ruth Mak RECIEVED
7514 Emerson Place CITYOFROSMEA9
Rosemead, CA 91770 DEC 0 6 2017
626-288-5351
CITY CLERICS OFFICE
Rosemead City Council
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
November 27, 2017
Dear Rosemead City Council:
I am writing this letter on behalf of residents of Rosemead, CA to express our views that
City Council should NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson
Place (APN:5286-017-004). At the bottom of this letter is a list of signatures from
residents who are against this conditional use permit. At the November 20th planning
commission meeting, all four planning commissioners at attendance voted to DENY the
granting of the permit. We support their decision to deny the permit for the following
reasons:
1. Incense Smoke around students: A temple that burns incense from 11- 3pm on a
daily basis will be established within 158 feet away from Ralph Waldo Emerson
School that serves over 520 students from pre-school to 6th grade. If we allow
incense smoke to be around kids, this sets a precedent for more smoking facilities
around schools in Rosemead in the future.
2. Endangering Students and Residents: The applicant for the permit said in the public
hearing video that they have 600 members. The 600 members is more than the
entire student population at Emerson School. The increase in traffic will endanger
students and residents at the school and at the three major intersections:
Prospect/Emerson, Stevens/Emerson, and Jackson/Emerson. In addition, the influx of
unfamiliar faces coming and going from the temple will make it difficult for local
1
residents to identify who are actual temple members from those that are not temple
members.
3. Offsite parking location does not pass municipal code: At 42:30 in the November
20th video, the applicant disclosed that he has offsite parking available for 12 parking
spaces at 3203 Del Mar Avenue. The applicant said that it is 800 ft away from the
Temple. That is a lie. Google Map and other services show that the distance from the
temple to 3203 Del Mar Avenue is over 1,800 feet. Per planning staff, municipal code
requires that any offsite parking to be within 300 feet.
4. The Permit Applicant has been violating code for a long time. Commissioner
Herrera commented in the November 20th video that the applicant knows that he is
violating the rules but continues to violate the rules anyway at 39:45 on the video. 20
seconds later, in the same video, John Tang asks Mr. Do a question about when he
acquired the property and how has he been operating it. Mr. Do said this, "1991... its
always operated as a religious but using as a single family... 26 years." How can you
expect someone that cheats the system to comply with the law?
S. The Permit Applicant has been dishonest. If you watch the November 20th video, the
applicant's public remarks are very inconsistent. He said that he acquired the
property in 1991 but has only been in control in the last two years. In addition, he
said max peak attendance from member is only 25 — 30 but their facebook pictures
show people sitting in tables and chairs that surpasses that amount multiple times.
There are many more inconsistencies in the video — so much so that Commissioner
John Tang said the following at 1:41:00 on the video, "When people come up here
to testify and give their public input on matters, especially if it is from the applicant
himself, we usually go off of their words. We usually don't ask them to show any
proof. We don't ask them to show any evidence of any sort, so when I ask a
question about the max capacity as well as its peak when this temple serves, I
expect an honest answer. But from the visuals that are presented to us from the
pictures on their social media page, they set up this property for more than 25
people to entertain more than 25 people and so in that sense this applicant has
already lost credibility in my opinion based on that in itself. So I would advise that
if you are going to continue this and if this ever gets appealed is to be honest when
you are testifying before a council or a public entity."
c
6. There are 4 temples within a 0.5 mile radius of the temple that other members can
go to. The 600 members can go to these other temples that are located at:
1. Boca Dhamra Seal Temple (3027 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead CA)
2. Chua Xa Loui Temple (2751— 2755 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead CA)
3. Los Angeles Buddhist Union (7833 Emerson Place, Rosemead CA)
4. Buddha Monastery Support (129 New Avenue, Monterey Park CA)
Thank you again for your time and consideration. We hope the letter was very clear on
why the council should deny the permit. This is simply a bad location for a religious
assembly. Please protect our kids and the residents in Rosemead. Attached to this letter
is a list of residents who supports this letter and would like you to deny the permit.
Sincerely,
Ruth Mak, a concerned local resident.
Attached is a list of signatures from local Rosemead residents requesting City Council to
deny the CUP application at 7516 Emerson Place.
r
4411 Delta Avenue
Rosemead, CA 9177
November 25, 2017
Rosemead City Council
Rosemead City Hall
8838 Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
Re: Temple at 7516 Emerson Place
Dear Sir or Madam:
As a resident of Rosemead for over twenty years, I appreciate how city officials and community
leaders try to engage diverse groups through policies and events to make the community a vibrant
and socially open place to live in. I am also a firm believer in the First Amendment. However, I
do not feel the site situated at 7516 Emerson Place, Rosemead, CA 91770, would be the best
location to have a religious temple. The site is small and located in a narrow street. It is currently
not zone for religious functions, but instead, residential use. The proposed temple's hours of
operation (between 11:00 am and 3:00 pm on a week day) might cause after school traffic problems
for Emerson School, which is located 158 feet away from the proposed site. Please do not issue
the owner of 7516 Emerson Place a conditional use permit for religious use. Thank you.
Sincerely,
o
Phung Thong
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
I`/iak
WIIq b. FM-�so� P/I Awe , C
9/ ql�TD
Rok waft
1L5 -64t 5.1;r 6;,4exsvh P Ra �d,cA
av
t
ZPg
r, GAd1 9✓1
y l l
�f q
Jaw.
v
✓ s
Cryu,, caw Lj' a KI
7LV4, q, tiv ` VWY-2. st C/�
li vey c
s� �
X44-, WT 1 0 _ si5MEA 0"
t
144 z
l�� l�! 7
os td�E�ft
er
rl X52 W KZL, o2 e 6j/i -77
dp, r
4a
D� h bo� kO OGs1 zEzZ Ca
Lc% i N�
4
I
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use. Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
7LI 2,
LI jk4F--eVl a-,C>1a.
2-2r z ��
7 aC
�a5-7
3.0-77
l 7 ��
17 e �%
`
3a� ✓ ✓ eo
5
&c rgwd
II z I
35b Pro5> u -F N(2- �p�e 1�11fi
c-Aqr7
12� U4 61.20
1) � � �7
OKI
C -C -Aus go N,9,1i c4 q11.
I/ilii
6k(VX
t a,?,- cv o--- ve� Vi
l(
.t0
7S c,JhL YDS
[-2c( ,N
e Jct
M6V< 17 0
VI -1,10 v �
ss� (,,��,*
5
6
I:
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
"
3 0� ,OS-?Mla
JaCb'S do 74
C,ulvez
30150\Cf�So n A-W—
d1
k"vt Act 51
l a l
i(
q�<7
ao�
U)ap- �
31 a
I
c�1
P\ Q`
-2W r::AxY,5cm
Gl /!
)inn
7565
it
I
6
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
� kl-Is
U
G� ,
C-kAe-W7-M- ��S&a
3 � S� 9bori0 Z �CVeV\S kVt FosL�MHC) CVS
�-�
11
�6-cC�/
iv"Y C-sJ
CND
15 I Z6 C 2V Jc-�
gF1-LO V t ij e �H g4c � Cry
l`' 1 17
1 L LAg vv�
61(316w -f -+-+,17t Ros'NC
C-
1112, S-
N e
5- PlcAW CA
fl 7
CO fn Mod
0113 Line
a1 2
SaPQ
7Sr I3rry ) c-.
4-x3 6 M > (C� i9VE , co9 7( e
-6� �
Ivi I L)
K�>Jt r/(r-A D
AI°lkdW
�5qD
/V
&0064a
a�lil�fYl G
�ll�/ l]
G
�✓1 V T
�� �T, 0� S7. �Oi Ccs C4 �17�d
P
------
7_
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
6 7
zeeZAAkU
8i )z
Z
cZ
I lkp
? rAq
7 7 Z--� Puff rl il-�- d q1'7
)1 26-f�ocLu'
y�0
rJ,z
77,7, �t 6,41e 2scK�Q 4
til L
�u Al N
r
f
�7s4'2 • M cssro,a (�rz
Garviv. 3,,e
J
tvC6 Saw 6•b<<e( OWC4
9.o5ev-aaol ct It770
I1'Z5 i�
X11 Gneu
05b Sal,\ Q�6b/ U
. C11110
544 7�a
Js�y Ma a�� Q
L ���'�
(� —
qs`(� �u�s ��t/(s -
-COAe� I17C-)
G(A- I V`Gl l
6 -e c -J l 7 / C-
i
Ill�f��
I�Ae(� w�,
I °I� I��
�[
�C �V'��
2- Z (Mo�iu AuLl
�Z," 0.
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date -..Name
Signature..
Address
c'L
%-21
2�'�
�A� �Dr
x/25' �,�JGs.Q<`/� f� -r�z y ��,`C'•.
X12 los jv
l�Ih-
4d lq C14vdla A &ami c J
�-
Y(
,�1lao f ili. 4 v /�p 5,u e�dl
Z/ ai ��
�ar�Yi29
X019
11
as' I
r
l �nocPi�l�
ylzD U�� frt Cfl (7f-1-
i�
jat MZ�,vy
l( I (I
�-Cw wq CAM4
Wj . \RN;z . �YG, qoY e '� o C6N c�( P77D
k t 1
t `
3Z0 1 �4e M— 0/zv
(Zc3e0--eq-(CcN�(
WIC)/1, Z
J
Please D® NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
2,&
l �� ,
1,124,
z A
-j-5,17
Vr�4r
-�Ma --ij
J,)a7 19VI
l-7
a
V6cJar S2
c/o6 jo
3 2 -Q-7112 ,STs ct 14
I) Z;
,,�Zz
/ � J
ttjz5/ �>
lew LI �l�
3W7
five Rccke4���17�
2 %
f/CcraR S iii
3ZJ�/ �sA/S�&rt-.Q 770 .
9 (7?C)
�` earr
i/776
Gl770
IA -mss
33b� �S I s
33A A3 -mss 7s �e
332
333 five
a
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditionai Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
Li n Lev
_L3= 7
Q
3 �ii
1q
llr��
�,
J
(� �'LI��V'i ✓�/146 liM �ih'N
Fl t IZ -—
7iz !s✓
Q
X5'17
7
(,V,�a
P-a�-ed
i '120 9011
C IZSCD Cid
53 S-'7 LE- A G 7 DSD M G --TP
ll -Z5-)7
�-alWCcrcG
//
2'1%z evcl%h Gtve i�Sew %ZEi.
l �7�
t7 Wt
co✓h
3ile tinS w
J 7 C
Al l� lh
J�IMoceld S
�3 I hV2) AVS
I1 l�
°r
-12-
14.
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
o5ARAU
lllz�
I�
IA ��° I
/
323I Evelyn AVO_ P-°Serheg4 C14 7144
Jawline
3231 ve(yn ✓f Po-eP`4, C4 1IT
II�Z�II,
G�aVG
rn
(j
Uva
�Z2/ &JN 1AVe g�5 4«n
1
5�soct�
3223 r-i-�
s
CM6C41
SteVeW)WdNia
AQe Cot
z—
Pent�-
w
L�av 2
J5' �o�o —h Y YT s c—M
�° 2� ST �vS2o�
2�
if z6 f�
13
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Dat/e
Name
Signature
Address
Y`b-Cl%-
l� �6
u
3 � pAkT PV� leiiS6M-9;O
o
J �CKHR2"( �
I(a6117`-<
J 1 'Litvy
�.
c
V 11 V
%I
l deZ L4rO V.e 9VV '2 'V
11-23�®�
��e ��
6 / v
9f
3 0/ �r �� �. ore LoAd c
cl plc cr
r
��� ® ,�Or-oto 3L s-eol e�
lJ 2 x/119
611
9 13N IZ I4 lZ
ITUf
9-64a I aT ov+' Sr ''7056v-6pr)3, G :
- ;w Lon acv
���iG
f yS- o q 6s i
I6-61 -0oxv,
7W C 0 ;Z� y S teoof 6w Z n2 z
rC� z
�
! a,G
I
4,0/7(04& vb s,_
47 4 i
I
14
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
L' l q
A Q
3i ��Q�e� �l. f d"'��✓ mil Y/77a
dssajuLot
S elf"OL
360 P ��,`f L� d�e�,�( l!lZZo
IlI
1yt�
I'dt7, 5�,M `(-71
1j
�vuZ &Kd
-Z
X2-3 45e o , CA 21776
�6
125! CA c11170'
V z 1�
rl�,
c2os� os-el,ej CA R(770
e vrt
�v
,
I l 1
AO W Ak�
M-26 l
3�0�� L tv Gz�s
1I -g-7
C
30 a qc 2.Ie�d
SatI
I(
oscroppA
T j Ne
U • 2 %
rias 1
it
/So n( Ad o me, GO`(
6q?,I
arc-
G� r
6L -S
d l _Z 11C,
3W [-5<A-lf.( X2
15
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditionai Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
Jose
L
A��l p7qVp U eld
7W
�I a(-, 17
&SBM rk
65)
6 ��7
/'2 � ���
�/'
�'I�s S �� , 61'y/7 7P
3339t�� d!ti' �dc �olvlriAL
17 Cl
11
A
-Z7-1-lo - o
1 1a6)17
�YMr k
z IIS I hVE 4Ae ,
LAS
¢���
aro &rl" cxwRv'&- 4of6:1�,zq CAp,11'�
ce z� 7
3o5% T"Wz
aal
(►-u'i�
(��-i���a�
3z�szr �v�3cyvp��II\\2s✓'I�
17
��Nri a /P a
ww
f7 �e gyp' 1ti�1A ieU l L7 6
//
Z
i� tiG� 1
�� Uds•�
3 13 vel , ✓t °l i� 7�
17
vil
0
Please ®O NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
GhgMak
e
7�`/ ZXer5ol�� s
tea- i
y
6
33a3 s u s PVL 6
11-7174
C G_
%'
2 PkeG�GullA�. P -,O meQ�c�1
a -t' �
�ama q,
A
ef O
v
!I "1 l�
hau<J-Afc-z-
//�� z -m �s� 1✓G lov.��
/A z7 %17Ann
j�(%D
��ti �
s-s-s—�J�ss �rT
d �� 4 ( 7
`-711
L
Ph�SPZ--CTAoS���z�
C �zo rv''�ljg�l
tzho
-170
is
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516.Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
'Ila 171
�-Z/,a
-a7®�
'��5
1533AVs=: 845EME-AP �l
d(
("dUa- cfeA
r
�2( U1rcofie�� 2 �
11®•27-! %
��E SGC-
A,? -1 cc
9,731 mt,5eci+el / v! 5�j��(tQ%
l l -Z`� 1 �
%�
✓%i1�i�1
�Oqj (32 H T OV Po5<zot-ec
cl—�g�/
T
SW -til<. vl
3933 r"115510�� BIZ C26S2sv�eaoi
0-4 (::1 .
dq..rsrYljgi✓re-RB-7G�G
a
Pe A" A7G4-14
qr -7 7
daso LA
13ar i G `i4os�meecG
r
6
Z
�t UD
�s"r� ���ss J7-
oC Qf 7
Ko
19 —
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
4
2726 ?v -G5 ,-A ave. k5cmep,4c.491770
I1'2%-/7
j3icir .r��a
Q r�GvlPl� Gee
770''1 6arveq AVe. 2crearn��
Goys n i' e-
Gm R)
6qettpolk Aya-. e
Lm�
�f
e
2U�
; aSecQ t
-27
62
MO-2rr
I �2 �
�--
`��
-2' a o �9 u��✓I �� lie-�e,r��o�
Cl --�? r�
�u��N �,
X��d,M� �
6�a _ ,SEW �r�����e s�►����
91-2—?_I
�LTX044ILl�
1®'7i'4-�� t'i `�✓� L~INI✓�►vt)�c
Zi/� I
22
,7
Date Name
Signature
Address
I'frr
c�e4
1-27--1���
7
j
Jog �
I E"-P-fson;
AC n
PI
V� T7.
2'I
��(sii�►(n
(�3� C AK A �� Gi �� 9i-7-7�
�'�����
�✓� �
���-rte"
��� �u 3�- 11-x- "�� %���
11,04-11
��1�
��
✓� � 1 J� l
/I
7 17
Ve ALA
f+`�
I I
A
Ou � ge,
�D5
gel tL/ 17 5 7''
23
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
112�—
/
!I
i q
%� �Y �t° Mon46
SOY H��MAOV 0�1/_� t' PE D
awa
L! fi dor < Y�
_
' 0 is %2� Joel MCI'' G(v e
P-05etj7eqa c4, (7/7 7 d
I27
Avzrlid
��sa eVGlyw Avz
PIZ
g V 7 7o
Y 6 Yeefol- /f ve I oCe,,, �/)7n
GI X2`1�
v
r�� 6,2f1�4/ �P, ���0-� 1-276
325c� DSI f-ta,� 11-Ve �Pf #��
UP
(w� . arra
d car«
I�L1
� �ne/�,
7/U /iJ. Acok AUf 4 h
- - 25
Please DO NOT dAPPROVE.the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
vo(w G7 ell
Z 7z--,6 4-vos n
i1�2�/�7
p�NH
_7719 4"P L cfc 6 V
RoukJ
-
-T" 770.
olnl��d q'f�l
7'7297
Ki/2��
��iclnaZ�
����
1� W�s�IC�, 6-t,
11�V
z
C�eV�i,a WR
26
1�
C
Please D® NOT APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
rr
1 _ $ aoi
r a cc
03D .Tsave-I av a ernecLj _
A -ag -d) 17
z -r -55.e Tari
�1«
— - - 20 -
Please DO NOT APPROVE the Conditional. Use Permit 16-08 at 7516 Emerson Place
Date
Name
Signature
Address
11 -no
I
Date Name
Signature
�'AA
Address
-7
—7
U
jW17
YOO
2
C7,1
Sl ., PZ -
24
Attachment N
Packet submitted to the City Clerk's Office on
December 7, 2017
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SY:
Rosemead Citv Council item: Request Denial of CUP for 7516 Emerson Pl. November 25, 2017
Dear Members of the City Council 1,
Because I live within 500 feet of the project, I am unable to vote on this item. I am respectfully
asking that you vote to deny this CUP and perhaps help them partner with another temple in the
area.
I have documented the lengthy list of violations that this operation has done. The Planning
Commission was not given the public records for this property and I only received the 57 pages
containing multiple records after I submitted a Public Records Request. For this reason, I was
frankly appalled when the recommendation was to allow the CUP when the neighbors have been
suffering for so long. What does this say to other violators of our codes? We will just reward
you.
While religious assemblies are allowed in the residential areas, clearly, they must not only
receive a Conditional Use Permit but the issuance can only be approved if, as stated in the first
requirement per Code sec. 17.132.040 "Approval of the application will not be incompatible
or in'urious to other properties or land uses in the vicinity or create conditions materially_
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare." It is very clear that when the
recommendation stated it would not be detrimental, this is an assumption totally without
basis. Since this corporation has been ignoring our city regulations for so long, how can we
expect that they will respect the conditions in the permit if it is granted? It is backwards to say
that we will just rely on code enforcement to make sure they do. They do NOT have a "by right"
to operate but rather the finding must be made that they will NOT be injurious to other
properties.
Clearly this project in operating illegally, has been detrimental to public health and safety with
the noise and smoke that the neighbors have had to endure and the public safety issue of traffic
and parking so close to Emerson school. The number of members stated by the applicant at the
11/20/17 hearing was 600. This will result in on street parking during school hours right when
Emerson school parents are picking up their children. As School Board Member Bob Breusch
stated at the Planning Commission Hearing, we have recently had 2 students hit by cars while
crossing the street. He stated the Emerson school parking lot was built for 15 staff members and
there are now 40 so they must park on the street. He raised concerns about the proposed hours of
operation conflicting with the time that school lets out and parents will be picking up their
children. For that reason this is the wrong location for this assembly.
Clearly this is not an issue of failing to allow religious assembly for people of this faith as there
are 4 temples within a half mile, all on major streets with adequate parking.
The following are from the 57 pages of public records for 7516 Emerson. Comments in bold and
italics are mine. To save paper and ink I have condensed the list and put them in chronological
order. I have included the pages that I citied in this packet but staff can provide the full 57 pages
if you need them.
p.36 5/23/95 Applicant to "demolish existing garage and construct new attached 2 car garage."
6/6/95 VOID- plans do not reflect site conditions.
p.5411/27/95 letter from city "A considerable amount of time has passed since you were
informed of the need to abate the violations that exist at the subject property. The additions and
alterations to the structure are being maintained in violation of the City of Rosemead Municipal
Code and the Building Code. ..all improvements require ...building permits. Specifically, the
garage conversion, the addition of the storage area, interior alterations, and placement of
concrete throughout the rear yard areas. These conditions remain in violation of the City of
Rosemead Municipal Code and Building Code. These are multiple violations 21 years ago!!
p.37 3/25/96 "Legalize... room addition & new 2 car garage previously built without permits.
"penalty", "non-compliance"
p.55 4/9/96 letter from city attorney: "not allow the temple in ypyr ggLage conversion to be
used by members of the public that are not related to you." ...Failure to meet these
renuirements could result in the filing of a misdemeanor complaint against ou." So 21
p.40 2/12/01 Code enforcement case. Convert back to SFR (single family residence)_Plan
check expired. Plan picked up for corrections and never returned.
p.52 7/28/2008 Letter from city "Your home is incompatible with the surrounding single-
family homes ...... If you wish to maintain the property as a place of worship,you must
immediately submit a CUP... Otherwise you must cease and desist from using this property_
as a place of worship without appropriate permit. This is 9 years ago and they have still been
operating, since then without permits.
.Pg 7.4/6/16 Code enforcement: "Resident is running illegal business (Buddhist Temple)...
becoming nuisance to surrounding neighbors. Visitors come every Sunday to purchase food.
Entire backyard converted into a kitchen with tables and chairs set up and covered with a
portable shade.... During the week throughout the day there is a lot of noise coming from the
inside (chiming and drums) And sometimes even at night and informant gets waked up from the
drums. Smoke from the incense is polluting the air and informant cannot open his windows.
Stated this property was previously a karaoke/gambling business."
Pg.48 4/6/16 Code enforcement: "2 restrooms seen during inspection...) bedroom & 1
possible illegal room south of the main house. Outdoor sink, stoves & electrical
unpermitted. Religious condition in residential zone. Church/business not zoned in this
area. All violations shall be corrected by 4/13/16
Pg.35 4/19/16 Code Enforcement Violation — 2 restrooms seen during inspection, possible
illegal room south of the main house. Outdoor sink, stoves, & electrical unpermitted.
poem ,,� na;t: nc in rnaidrntinl znne_ church/husiness not zoned in this area. (violations
Pg 1.5/3/16 complaint..."this past weekend the noise has escalated and a lot of smoke in the
air"...
Pg 9.8/16/16 Code Enforcement: "The, residential property located at 7516 Emerson Place and
in the R-2 zone appears to be illegally operating a religious assembly use. Places of religious
assembly is a use that requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit in order to operate in the
R-2 zone. The illegal religious assembly use must cease immediately, and the structure must
be converted back into residential use.
Pg.la through If. 8/16/16 Citation .."Business Activitywithout License"
P.25a through 25c.10/17/16 James Chow applicant representative for "Property owner" Ky Do
"IN TRANSFERRING PROCESS"
I(I v Do spoke on behalf of temple on 11120117. On 10117116 He states they would have around
know they would abide by the shorter hozzr schedule now pYOposed?
Pg. 15a through 15c.11/16/16 letter from city" found application to be incomplete." On page 15b
of the letter it states: "All L 'ous activity and any items related to the religious activity_
shall be located inside the temple. Any outdoor shrines/altars shall be placed inside. Please
indicate on the plans that the existing shrines/alters in the front yard shall be moved inside." See
pictures posted on their Facebook page showing outdoor shrine and food service as late as T
shrine outside activity not inside temple
pictures from Facebook page of Binh Dinh Chinese Friendship November 2017
p.17a through 17c.1/12/17 letter from city (mistakenly has 1/12/16 but Sandra listed as Mayor
so it had to be 2017)"city ..has found the application to be incomplete ... pg.18b Public Safety
department would like%daily operation schedule; special events which would create noise or
traffic; celebration of any holidays.
I Respectfully request denial of Conditional Use Permit and perhaps offer assistance with
application for moving to an appropriate location.
Sincerely, Margaret Clark.
U
it
io 7X>4!9 I�Zo
Ss iFIR
s 17
y
W ywj Z e4 'yy ty `
!nr 40
® u w 2 r V) W
15
tt O C9
� o
O a =
L PgZq
o qty
lu mF®s;� 3 J
@ o m°• �� C J
!o ey, Fs F Q w
W'a
yy W {N
• 'ss' 8�� SS q Z m U
J m OOc6aa ; H1.2 ny a q }� 'U� ws
mcy mHuR O. Omn OLB d$ mR re o� UD'� 2CT{C R tlILNN " m
`-"ism o$@ •❑ Sam ❑ $ >, mn o iL1
gE ag Em sm5 °o'^ Ao'L'm n Nom¢N
=�Ua E -in 8�Q•<i'o a8i"i sU mu a_ 3
m'�`W.mu..cmw ® Qp�p'P"mn'.Ngmo U. 6R mN _°oo-pZp�k• uom
=nc«`m 2'coU mU am€ my mmE'a �a®ApeJ �wd�
�°o._°.Qa$m�Eae tO¢ � �5 F-®Qj00 cp Ems
> m Q Y m m�
.Q m$v c.v„ mo maRngh� ga ��s �� Sm3 HOME e� `m
JU �.�3o m`o �u asam a®mo `dm Ta= -�_.® s3 o, m
EaaRw%a$.ao¢°«`o E«w-o c �wm cm3ia myy0� 'H®O@n�y 2ti 38
N�:.oU o'er rw'°.R.H� vb=.an m� mOo cwa �d MWOMM, N ma'=' 3
aaE@wj,'P• wmzmon Qin �" .mim owes eo gEE p e ��$°'®N mN Rim
and».eOcm oa�45cra?am aJ Eo °J aom o ®5°,m
masc�aR am m.c mia-d¢ 4 'gym ¢ `o m� `02 •�«3' ®QfZ®p
uQ ¢.nos far �@ o v®L i� `o WBUw® VV
mcE.®maE mem m>9sx °. r mo .°. m�$ $Wa � [o #� o-..-
`
�m'i,..a N- 000.Nammm ms's _v 2mm =€m dL 3
s i vi `8 �$cam� .E m.mcm SFo n 'v -a q m=o u Ec:. _ Wdr0�W4 ms
t m agl mamas=E$my°'m ¢ m$ ¢ °•, v �. 'gm .° WQW`L Y! m na L'o
$o nim m$ a�groN°`°' odd o o ® $ p3ln®� nESJ o @2®2 oc5 mdN�
cbc4eAM aG25�$a�mti,>�.mWy®®
i Wdsa no.�-. ®E"i aEa.$ma= g g4soRo
m3m a m n ® °{ u;•.°�'S� c rd'O � n� mm °
gp326dam_ -g-
•E � 9A`m $vpsg cc..�ynv mc3Qin� c:S,? dmS �mU `" ,2 ¢dm �56 K d� m m >myamQ
nm mm Eoa m m®wes ''t-acm N®
r°°a$
oil
mam
m�
mm`oim�'mm mam>s'milU mE n3
s 2°�E
1
MAYOR:
JOE VASOUEZ
MAYOR PRO TEM:
MARCAAET BLARK
GOUNGILMEMBERS:
ROBERT W. BRUESCH
JAY T. IMPERIAL
GARY N. TAYLOR
November 27, 1995
Xuan Binh Wong.
7516 Emerson Place
Rosemead, CA 91770
RE- 7516 Emerson Place
Dear Mn Wong:
8836 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD - P.O. BOX 399
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
TELEPHONE (818) 288-6671
TELECOPIER 8183079218
A considerable amount of time has passed since you were informed of the need to abate the
violations that exist at the subject property. The additions and alterations to the structure
are being maintained in violation of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code and the Building
Code.
The improvements to the property all require Planning Department approvals and building
permits. This includes all additions, alterations, and changes to the use of the buildings.
Specifically, the garage conversion, the addition of the storage area, interior alterations, and
the placement of concrete throughout the rear yard areas.
These conditions remain in violation of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code and Building
Code, as previously explained to you (copy of notice attached). Despite your expressed
desire to continue using the structures as they now e:.ist, they still remain Building and
Zoning Code violations.
Please give this matter your immediate attention. A reinspection 10 days from the date of
this letter will be made to review your progress and answer any questions you may have.
Your failure to correct these violations may result in your case being referred to the City
Prosecuting Attorney's office for enforcement action.
Respectfully,
Anthony WL It
Building Official
cc: Peter Lyons, Planning Director
aP5
11
)
I
Z
�
V
p
2
LST E
�=a
0
5
R�
o�
R
o ®S
Y
tsa
®
c6
I
�
V
Y �
t
LST E
�=a
o
R�
o�
R
o ®S
Y
tsa
®
c6
aV
Rm
❑
q—
p
4
aF
m HmS
c��i
LL
®
w q
ma
11 a
�'i�a
� Fm
m
a
gi
Raw t a5n� S
2
�
e
`
LL
•e
❑ 1
•
psi
iRW:
m
N Q.
R
q
t
� �
]w
�A
C
F
s9 SIU
Q
I
m �
160
S Sy K
�
V
0
p@
LST E
�=a
o
R�
o�
R
o ®S
=V
Rbc
n
aV
Rm
❑
q—
p
4
aF
c��i
LL
®
w q
ma
�'i�a
c�
Rhe=
m.
gi
Raw t a5n� S
2
�
e
`
LL
1
❑ 1
psi
iRW:
m
N Q.
ry�
Q
m �
160
S Sy K
m
�
V
0
p@
LST E
�=a
o
R�
o�
m
�
V
3
va m
�=a
o
R�
o�
R
o ®S
=V
Rbc
n
aV
Rm
RmS
mUwO
q—
p
W
aF
c��i
gw
all
ma
�'i�a
c�
Rhe=
m.
gi
Raw t a5n� S
uppu;: a �e �� I
9 111 t j
3-/
WALLIN, KRE55, REISMAN & KRAN ITZ
J
LAW OFFICES y
2000 TWENTY-EIC-HTH STREET. SUITE 315
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 904Cx-6205
TELEPHONE (3VOi 450-9552
FACSIMILE 13101 450-0506
April 9, 1996
Mr. Xuan Binh. Wong
7516 Emerson Place
Rosemead, CA 91770
p e 1_�..m-�> lnrotm�7 �4 75' � Em>'rson plea
Thank you for attending yesterday's City Prosecutor conference regarding the above -
referenced property. I trust that the conference helped clarify what steps must betaken to bring
your property into compliance with the Rosemead Municipal Code. I will continue to monitor
progress in-tbis case to ensure that the all of the necessary corrective work is completed.
Specifically, we agreed that you would:
1. Complete construction of your new garage by June $, 1996.
2. Not allow the temple in your garage conversion to be used by members of the
public that are not related to you.
As you know, failure to meet these requirements could result in the filing of a
misdemeanor complaint against you.
Thank you for your cooperation thus far. I look forward to the successful resolution of
I.�-3' is matter.
Very truly yours
4eeth W. Flooy*d
I�yd
Assistant City Attorney
City of Rosemead
cc: Code Enforcement Officer (Clearwater)
Building Official (Weimholt)
0
FymjN � � 2C
® kVM23Ei
LA
CE CA
�M1
ti U
e g
smlugom
mrm
0 o
wU'
m3
Nc SOC yyy `m ®'^mm m�>"'mav°
om @
40
�,'9
IRS
3w
2KOwOe
co
mm
m
ORm'v6mv"gm—t�
d-a�nd
�3m
AE�m
`cDmaecmm °m
'-C
ommcAv®
-3myap$`
g
$3c4aiC .0
c`m'zywgOzAo
-
29
vo
S9Sa�a°
�uSffiCE
mz®vTon"mm
.
U-omm
mN
m�
E>n�ua��.y.fp_-
,zrovO°m
o�c�mnuu¢.aQx_awu�
ao`aO
IIm
aei5s3..
tz- a¢¢uoggmrJ�p.
5maam @c�mmmm
ymm
=a3om>oE
EUNDtw�-�am
50-o2
m9oz',.mc
mu�$ed�
_
^um -='
gwOOzm
E
Ho
tffip'
,cg3
v^-a.c�
PE
�.
m
"D..
'ao
myoJwP
cmm-o
w.mm,y
=mo
UEuimcmU
`name maEocO oe o`Pm`¢=¢o
-A
Um
a w
=3mso
c; SaS
rnIt
z --m
so
D ..m mcimo—mD= '-'av mma
°N
Nim°�
NNa°om@
€ ®�
D. NSa4w'J
5$
��m
mi�pP—=Jn°
�VgM
-m°t Po3p m'�m
ra0�
�it Z`€�mc
rP
P+m
£ a
,C
Z'g
Gm
eZaEt En ®a 6e3=m^'
Smo E3..v ov Sc ^
a=em
��
w¢�uU
^.wzo63
d3
°
g`S
C=momm Prov Elim m
n
5 a LL
cc�o
.oJ
m W'a
w❑ rt m
LL m
_'P.cmmuco
([ mG ma ara P�o .a -rnoP mP
0� a =
a
eEc_
S
e
m -T``
ms
m
P]° �@ -5 a2Z co; 3v an ammi°P
m
c " Z
s 6 BB
pmo,E�
w of '{nn{' 1,oj'1
n o o n
z z u ¢
op
� =
a aeom.c Qumym�am °-. -'m
�c nsm
x`
���_Eca�cUo
zm3
Y - 3WOP
am.£Lc
was
a.ozo
4y4°o®❑¢=
HO
Dc
..IVU mo°m@°e�m
D a -
ct '^m
a
s
m
as co c>
oe�oF
m�-2m
'-o
m
m
ams
mlC3
d>mm
®m`E>`=_�-4'-
�=C°v.
¢3v
2$0 N
Cm
m9a
e.
��mmmX amec 3ao�mvc
m
33 mo
M41
�.c "m co
6hja02
FymjN � � 2C
® kVM23Ei
LA
CE CA
�M1
ti U
e g
C
smlugom
mrm
0 o
wU'
m3
Nc SOC yyy `m ®'^mm m�>"'mav°
om @
40
�,'9
IRS
3w
2KOwOe
co
mm
m
ORm'v6mv"gm—t�
d-a�nd
�3m
AE�m
`cDmaecmm °m
'-C
ommcAv®
-3myap$`
g
$3c4aiC .0
c`m'zywgOzAo
-
29
vo
S9Sa�a°
�uSffiCE
mz®vTon"mm
.
U-omm
mN
m�
E>n�ua��.y.fp_-
,zrovO°m
o�c�mnuu¢.aQx_awu�
ao`aO
IIm
aei5s3..
tz- a¢¢uoggmrJ�p.
5maam @c�mmmm
ymm
=a3om>oE
EUNDtw�-�am
50-o2
m9oz',.mc
mu�$ed�
_
^um -='
gwOOzm
E
Ho
tffip'
,cg3
v^-a.c�
PE
�.
m
"D..
'ao
myoJwP
cmm-o
w.mm,y
=mo
UEuimcmU
`name maEocO oe o`Pm`¢=¢o
Um
m E
6�
=3mso
c; SaS
rnIt
z --m
so
D ..m mcimo—mD= '-'av mma
°N
Nim°�
NNa°om@
€ ®�
D. NSa4w'J
5$
��m
mi�pP—=Jn°
�VgM
-m°t Po3p m'�m
ra0�
�it Z`€�mc
rP
P+m
VOIZOe q2
,C
Z'g
Gm
eZaEt En ®a 6e3=m^'
Smo E3..v ov Sc ^
a=em
s'
_mE.a
w¢�uU
^.wzo63
_m
g`S
C=momm Prov Elim m
8mam
� N amH_
cc�o
.oJ
m W'a
a-_ �
apil
m��
_'P.cmmuco
([ mG ma ara P�o .a -rnoP mP
0� a =
oms��mmC
N.3g`o
eEc_
S
qiw. Sot-
tl J4430
m -T``
ms
m
P]° �@ -5 a2Z co; 3v an ammi°P
m
O NV
a—°m
pmo,E�
op
� =
a aeom.c Qumym�am °-. -'m
�c nsm
x`
���_Eca�cUo
zm3
Y - 3WOP
am.£Lc
was
a.ozo
4y4°o®❑¢=
HO
Dc
..IVU mo°m@°e�m
D a -
ct '^m
wamE
Ko, a�
m
as co c>
oe�oF
m�-2m
'-o
.moo EBF me
�yJ
ams
mlC3
d>mm
®m`E>`=_�-4'-
�=C°v.
¢3v
2$0 N
Cm
m9a
e.
��mmmX amec 3ao�mvc
m
33 mo
M41
�.c "m co
6hja02
m4
8'`m:
cP m.ommEctlU
Emm
EEU V
�D
-°'mam``° emic
_tmO z:,Z��c
to
�� a-yccm3m-S
Llai
mm Eca _. °'
m
>Em m3
a�cO-Wo.eY
t®at=•11'"-.. __-._
o-``�
._.. __
L
�c3._-__._--__..
mU�aa
o��
�d`$o cJmv� ar.m�E
C
MAYOR:
JOHNTRAN
MAYOR PRO TEM:,
a ,JOHN NUNEZ
COUNCILMEMBERS:
MARGARETCLARK
POLLY LOW
GARY A. TAYLOR
July 28, 2008
Binh Dinh Chinese Friendship
7516 Emerson
Rosemead, CA 91770
spy
ick
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX 399
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
TELEPHONE (626) 669-2100
FAX (626) 307-9218
SUBJECT: Your home is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes.
Dear: Property owner
Site inspection of your property on July 2000, 2008 revealed that the existing structure is out of character
with the surrounding single-family homes in the neighborhood. According to available records, the
structure was permitted as a single-family home but currently the home appears to be operated and
maintained as a place of worship. Rosemead Zoning Code Section 17.112.020 allows Churches or
other places used exclusively for religious worship in any Zone upon granting of a Conditional Use
Pen -nit by Planning Commission. If you wish to maintain the property as a place of worship, you must
immediately submit a Conditional Use Permit application to Planning Division for review. Otherwise
you must cease and desist from using this property as a place of worship without appropriate permit.
Additionally, all single-family homes must meet the goals and objectives of the City of Rosemead
single-family design guidelines. The city of Rosemead single-family home design guideline's purpose
is to preserve neighborhood compatibility and community cohesion. These guidelines also aim at
encouraging excellent single-family architectural design through quality standards in terms of style,
materials and colors. Your property is characterized by bright red and yellow colors that are
inconsistent with other home colors in the neighborhood. Therefore, your property conflicts with the
City of Rosemead Single -Family Design guidelines.
Please be advised that reflective building materials which alter or degrade existing neighborhood
character are prohibited in the city of Rosemead. The City's Zoning Code requires all remodels to
utilize materials, colors and design that match existing stractures. Therefore, you must repaint the
fascia board and the existing fence earth tone colors to match the house color. Your house is expected
to be compatible with the surrounding single-family homes once repainting is complete.
f
A re -inspection of your property shall be done within 10 -calender days from the issuance date of this
letter to review your progress. Failure to correct these violations may result in your case to be referred
to the City Attorney's office for enforcement action.
Please feel free to contact me, at (626) 569-2147, 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 every Friday.
Sincerely
Georg ga
Associate Planner
Print Request
Page 1 of 2
Request: 408256 Entered on: 04/06/2016 12:01 PM By: Janet Lee
Customer Information
Name: anonymous Phone:
Address: Alt. Phone:
Email:
Topic: Code Enforcement & Property Maintenance Request Problem
Ordinance type:
Status: Closed Priority: Normal
Assigned to: Abel Rodriguez Entered Via: Phone
1 nrafinn•7MR Fmerson PI
E Errnarson Ave Liner PI
21' Cx
tF
T
> 4
C3
M 1=mer80n s
Elersrentary School
C'20a lft loap data 92017 G-)cglp
Resident is running illegal business (Buddhist Temple) for over a year now and becoming a nuisance to
surrounding neighbors. Visitors come every Sunday to purchase food. Entire backyard converted into a
kitchen with tables and chairs set up and covered with a portable shade. People start arriving between
11am-3pm. During the week throughout the day there is a lot of noise coming from the inside (chiming
and drums). And sometimes even at night and informant gets waken up from the drums. Smoke from the
incense is polluting the air and informant cannot open his windows. Stated this property was previously a
karoke/gambling business.
will close this request out, please refer to CE -16-0347
Date Expect Closed: 04/16/2016
Date Closed: 04/26/2016 10:15 AM By: Abel Rodriguez
Enter Field Notes Below
Notes:
htto://user. vovoutreach.com/rosemead/printrequest.php?curid=2632756&type=0 11/22/2017
Date:
Subje
Occul
Contact Telephone
'14�fA i1
�A Cry
)sac
I
0 Owner Q Tenant 0 Manager ® Contractor
0 Other
MCTIOiN: DFSCPJFTj(ON:
0 504°010 Adopted LACO 7.04.020 — Business lic.ense required. Must obtain at City Hall.
D 5,44°030° A.3.4 Unsightly or poorly maintained property or landscape detracting from the neighborhood.
D 5.44.030. A.5°6 Improper storage of imperative vehidles, vehicle parts, car canopies, tents or junk items.
[ 1 8,32°030° (A) Placing any garbage, refuse, trash, offal, rubbish or trash cans — containers in public vro*. �
<
t 1?
fl�,04.°0fl0 (r�)_ Adopted LACO Building Code 26 Sec. 106.1—.In ec66n e 'i or Permifs required. _
:Cltvt✓' i#'<�:�(_^F i, 1-7" 3 "
.._ e 5F fig :.+.)
t?e9 d• Pe! " .Lr, i v- e
11 6.06.010 Dog license required. Must obtain at Public Safety. P { S !
z -.,.. "` a ,g" a-.. a-�i. s a k; a t s z_ 2 ! s f f
= R
This is NOT a citation This is NOT a summons to anoear in court. This is a COURTESY NOTICE OF
VIOLATION and serves as a MTdTTElN WAI81NIlNTG. Failure to only may result in an administrative citation
All vtolatiom s ag be corrected by
RR3:3 E. Vallev Blvd....: >
Bring this warning notice & show this to Building and Safety IDepartihent..
CITY HALL is open -Monday — Thursday from 7AM — 6PM and Closed on Fridays & Holidays.
e 66 EMODEL [REPAIR WORK WAS BONE BEFORE CITY PERMITS WERE OBTAINED15
DOUBLE FEES A 8H+'d2EQUIRED FOR PERMITS;
9
lease contact the Code Enforcement Officer below at (626) 569-21-2 If you have any r$uestaons, p `
Signature of Oce"Atite : %` /l.. Date,
. , 1 4. �
dscsanvra�f�a•er� 4:�r��`.t e,i�'.'`:i'"€ I D e
t " Page 1 of 6 �x
Print Code Enforcement Case
Code Enforcement Case: CE -16-0347
Entered on: 04/26/2016 09:54 AM
Printed on: 11/22/2017 •
Topic: Zoning Status: Closed
Due Date: Assigned To: Abel Rodriguez
Initiated by: CRM Request
Hearing Time:
Permit #: Business name:
Property Location
Occupant Name: _ Lic: DOB:
Address: 7516 EMERSON PL, 91770-2210
Phone: Cell #:
APN : 5286.017-004
Owner Name: t3ltvti t�uvrr i nrivnan r + .0 Address: 7516 7516 EMERSON PL
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770-2210
Phone: Cell #;
Actions �—
Ac#ion t3 bate Time Hours Notelt76servation
nspec€ion Abel 04/06/2078 0.00 Made contacf+ will] }n hP a R ri�ihils� erne eto iat inspect
resiidential home.
KUUII,LfUGG
Multi
Multipllee donation slots throughout, restroom subdivided into two,
possible illegal addition to the rear, outdoor sinktkitchen area and
selling religious merchandize at the home. Issued a warning notice
to see planning and building _ '
Complaint Abel 04/D6/201612:Q1pm 0,04 Request46256-anonymous-Residentrsrumm�giliegalbusiness
and becoming a nuisance to
Rodriguez (Buddhist Temple) for over a year now
surrounding neighbors. Visitors come every Sunday to purchase
food. Entire backyard converted into a kitchen with tables and
chairs set up and covered with a portable shade. People start
arriving between 11am-3pm. During the week throughout the day
there is a lot of noise coming from the inside (chiming and drums).
And sometimes even at night and informant gets waken up from
the drums. Smoke from the incense is polluting the air and
informant cannot open his windows. Stated this property was
previously a karoke(gambling business.
.. . _ .............. �� ,.I.s�;,.a.r rpFRnn-rrtrinn-nob-202) wilt close this case out till further
-. - -... action is needed
Rodriguez
Compla[nt Janet E;: 06/03!2076 423 pm 0.00 Informan# came bscl<to report same complaint and was directed to
Public Safety from City Hall. Stated they throw trash inside other
neighboring's trash bin because theirs is full. This past weekend
the noise has. escalated and a lot of smoke in the air. Preparation is
done on Saturdays and people start to arrive on Sundays between
11am -4pm. Property is not asking for money but is asking for
donation. Advised informant to record the chiming and any
evidence they can provide when this occurs again.
11:04 am 0.00 New request will re -open since issues have not been taken care af.
Notes
Rodriguez
Reyes
am U.UU UITe iftKHGua<ffo/, i IL. uou va+gv.+, ,-, ,-n •• ----- , _..... -
CHINESE FRIENDSHIP), Penalty Amt(520), Violations (RMC
17.12.020 - Religious Conditions: $250,RMG 5.04.010 Adopted
LAGO 7,04.020 Business Activity Without License: $260), Service
am o.o0 Keceivea uonRrnenai use r—.... y+an ++�++• + ••++^^••a -m-
regarding licensing of property to serve as a place for relig:
assembly. Plans were reviewed and some concerns arose
http://user.govoutreach,com/rose,meadloeprintrequest.php?c-orld=l087334&type=0 11/22/2017
Inspection
Abet
Print Code Enforcement Case
Page 2 of 6
Rodriguez
Asian, who was advised to secure
at location one
regarding Parking and noise issues. Plan was passed along to Lt.
Boars.
Somoano for his input.
Phone call Michael 10126/2016 3:28 pm
OM Spoke on the phone with David Ho, property manager for this
location. Mr- Ho was asking to have the citation voided or reduced
Reyes
thatwas issued for this property due to the fact that he had been
00/14/2017 0.00 Doors were closed during drive by
waiting to see if the Conditional Use Permit would be issued
Rod€i uez
allowing for this property to be used for religious assembly. Mr. Ho
Inspection
was advised that even If the permit were given, the citation would
10/02/2017 O.Oo Doors were closed during drive by
still be valid as it was issued prior to his application for the G.U.P.
Rodriguez
Mr. No was advised to pay for the ticket to avoid any additional
increases to the original citation amount.
Case Notes Michael 12107/2018 7:18 pm
0,05i Spoke on the phone with Mr. Ho and scheduled an appointment to
discuss a ticket that he received. Appointment scheduled for
Reyes
YJ1nfi11 a at 2:30 om at the Public Safety Center.
Inspection
Abet
08/02/201712;00 pm 0.00 Went to nayand building peopleeere
male
Rodriguez
Asian, who was advised to secure
at location one
Boars.
Inspection
Abel
08/03f2017 0.00 Doors Were closed
Inspection
Rodriguez
Abel
00/14/2017 0.00 Doors were closed during drive by
Rod€i uez
Inspection
Abel
10/02/2017 O.Oo Doors were closed during drive by
Rodriguez
< Corrections Re uired:Please obtain all required ermn sl room �n na3i.
3 RMC 5.04.010 Adopted €ACO 7.04.020 -Business activity without license Open
Date:
Time:
Name:anonymaus
Address:
Fees
Ixttp://user,govoutreach.com/rosemead/ceprintrequest php?curid=l0&7334&type=0
11/22/2017
H�Mmm
el
H�Mmm
f _ 1
Print Request
Page 1 of 2
Request: 60057 Entered on: 08/16/2016 08:25 AM By: Cory Hanh
Customer Information
Name: Cory Hanh Phone: (626) 569-2141
Address: Alt. Phone:
Email: chanh@cityofrosemead.org
Request Classification
Topic: Illegal Business at a Residence Request type: Problem
Status: Closed Priority: Normal
Assigned to:Abel Rodriguez Entered Via: Web
Problem Location:7516 Emerson PI
Z E Emerson Ave Pl
Emorsoi1i
Elementary School }'
Go gle lvlap d di 011017 Google
Description:
The residential property located at 7516 Emerson Place and in the R-2 zone appears to be illegally
operating a religious assembly use. Places of religious assembly is a use that requires approval of a
Conditional Use Permit in order to operate in the R-2 zone. The illegal religious assembly use must cease
immediately, and the structure must be converted back into residential use.
reason wosea
Please refer to CE -16-0347 regarding on going issues for this request. Issued citation as well
Date Expect Closed: 08/26/2016
Date Closed: 08/16/2016 12:03 PM By: Abel Rodriguez
Enter Field Notes Below
kno M
httn://user. aovoutreac,h.com/rosemead/printrequest.php?cLuid=2828928&type=0 11/22/2017
APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE NAME ✓��� '��G
PHOCELL F FAX
�t -
ADDRESS_ j v
CITY / <�j 4C)Lst9 /f /CSTATE ZIP C
EMAILADDRESS - - -
i
PROPERTY OWNER
PROPERTY OWNER NAM=
i<y �� (�
PHONE CELL _FAX 6
ADDRESS
CITY 'L_ Y o N 7 � STATE AZIP S T3 -
EMAIL ADDRESS
SEND CORRESPONDENCE TO (Circle all that apply):
1e,::� APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE
PROJECT DESCRIP T ION
PROPOSED PROJECT % Q '2. Zed/'O r iE 91:z h- , A
PROJECTADgDRESS/LOCATION fytAs°d PL a 91770
APN�bal�®Q��
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONE DESIGNATION
REQUEST (SPECIFY PROPOSED SQ FT., LOT SIZE, USE, AND BLDG. SQ FT)
d
Pg
City of Rosemead
APPLICATION TYPE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT
_ MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT
_ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
_ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
—VARIANCE (Residential)
_VARIANCE (All Other)
_ MINOR EXCEPTION
—ZONE CHANGE
—PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
_ DESIGN REVIEW
_ MODIFICATION OF ENTITLEMENTS
—SPECIFIC PLAN (Cost + 10%)
_ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
_ PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
K CEOA EXEMPTION
pG LA COUNTY CLERK RECORDING FEE
p,-- PUBLICATION
-«:t7E 5lfi k ssim
FEE
NUMBER
$2,000.00+ $50/parcel
GPA
$1,320.00
CUP d
$500.00
ALP
$2,750.00
MCA
$1,385.00 + $106/lot
TPM
$1,385.00+$1 DO/lot
IM
$975.00
ZV
$1,375.00
ME
$300.00
ZC
$1,700.00+ $50/parcel
SP
$1,20D.00
PDR
MOD
PCN
$450.00
$980.00
$9D.00
$75.00
$500.00
OTHER (See Fee Schedule for Development
Ag_reement, Density Bonus, Joint/Off-Site Parking TOTAL aC1SS.6b
Agreement. Reasonable Accommodation, Time
APPLICANT TO COMPLETE
APPLICANTNAME Y
PHONE - CELL_
annRFa..q --»i 6 L mr�raoh v- -
CITY SPATE ZIP
EMAIL ADDRESS
r
b/I
P l
' MAYOR:
SANDRAARMENTA
MAYOR PRO TEM;
POUYLOW
COUNCIL MEMBERS.,
WILL MALARCON
MARGARET CLARK
STEVEN LY
November 16, 2016
Ky Do & Binh Vinh
7616 Emerson Place
Rosemead, CA 91770
8838 E VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100
FAX (626) 3D7-9218
Conditional Use Permit16-1•
Emerson7516 Place
On October 17, 2016, the City of Rosemead Planning Division received your
Conditional Use Permit application, requesting to establish a religious assembly use.
Staff has conducted a review of the application, including the conceptual. plans, and has
found the application to be incomplete. In order for the Planning Division to deem the
subject application complete, please review and address the comments below, and
submit revised plans along with any other required items.
Project Information
1. Include and/or revise the following data in the project information section(s):
a. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
b. Zone: R-2
G. Lot size: 60 x 190.06-- 9,503 sq. ft.
d. PAR: 1,346/9,503=94®/o
e. Size of existing home: 1,346 sq, ft. (according to Rosemead Building and
Safety Records)
f. Landscaping calculations for the front yard and the whole lot
g. Parking calculations
h. Property owner and address
Site plan
2. Please indicate any temporary or permanent structures you plan to demolish.
This includes any portable shade structures.
Indicate3. • material of • or proposed • - !..
5. All religious activity and any items related to the religious activity shall be located
inside the temple. Any outdoor shrines/alters shall be placed inside. Please
indicate on the plans that the existing shrines/alters in the front yard shall be
moved inside.
r e [
Floor—Plan
a. The floor plan does not reflect what we have on Please y 1 site
plan and verify all rooms and square footages. If 0, new layout if proposed, please
label the new roomsibathrooms/storages accordingly. In addition, the floor plan
on page Al does not correlate with the floor plan on page A2.
9. The existing storage is blocking the kitchen window. Please revise the plans to
reflect the correct location of the existing storage.
staff recommends that the meeting room be relocated to the storage.
floor . plan to accommodate living quarters, If the clergy is not proposing to. 11vt
there, please remove the shower in bathroom 42.
Elevations
92.Indicate the exact colors (model #), brands, and materials of all walls, roofs,
trims, windows, door, etc. for all existing and proposed structures.
14. Please revise the following inconsistencies:
a. Eave color
i. The existing eave color Is dark brown, however on the plans, it is
labeled red. If red eaves are proposed, please. indicate on the plans
that the eaves will be painted red to match the existing red roof. In
addition, please match the colors of the eaves to the roof or vice
versa.
b. Eave Shape
I. The existing eaves are not accurately portrayed on. the plans.
Please refer to page A2 for revisions.
C. Security bars on windows visible from the public right-of-way
i. Please indicate on the plans that the existing security bars on all
windows visible from the public right-of-way will be removed or
relocated inside. However, if the property owner has permits for the
security bars, please provide the Planning Division with them:
l4�'J
Roof Plan
16. Please revise the "new patio'" on the roof plan to state "2 -car carport".
Parkins
16. Per Rosemead Municipal Code 17.112.096(A)(2)(a), customer parking shall be a
minimum dimension of nine (9) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet deep. in addition,
parking stalls shall be striped with three (3) inch doable lines, six (6) inches apart.
The stall width shall be measured from the center point of each double striped
markings
17. Per Rosemead Municipal Code 17.112.090(A)(2)(c), where a parking stall is
located abutting a wall, column, or similar structure, the stall width shall be
increased by to (2) feet. The parking stall along the south property line shall be
increase by two (2) feet to meet this requirement.
18. Per Rosemead Municipal Code 17.112.191(M), exits from parking lots shall be
clearly posted with Stop" signs and it shall be unlawful for a motorist to stop at
such sign before leaving the parking lot.
19. Indicate how the parking area will be illuminated. Per Rosemead Mu* nicipal Code
Section 17.98. Exterior lighting shall be of low intensity and shielded so that light
will not spill out onto surrounding properties or project above the horizontal plane.
20. Per Rosemead Municipal Code 17,112.1110, where a parking area abuts a
property classified for R uses, it shall be separated by a solid masonry wall, sir
(6) feet in height.
Public Safety
21. The Public Safety department would like more information pertaining to:
a.. Dally Operation Schedule
b. Special events which would create noise ortraffic
c. Celebration of any holidays (ex. Chinese New year, Tet; etc.)
Public Works
22. Please refer to the attached comments.
Los Angeles Pire Department
233. Please refer to the attached comments.
-.Please refer to the attached comments.
MAYOR-
SANDRAARMENTA
MAYOR FR® TEM:
POLLY Low
COUNCILMEMHERS:
WILLIAM AIARCON
MARGARET CLARK
ST, EVEN LY
January 12, 2016
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BDX.399
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
TELEPHONE -(626) 569-2100
FAX (626) 307-9218
Ky Do & Binh Vinh
7516 Emerson Place
Rosemead, CA 91770
SUBJECT. Conditional Use Permit 16-08
7516 Emerson Place
EMr
On December 12, 2016; the City of .Rosemead Planning Division received your revised
plans, requesting to establish a religious assembly use. Staff has conducted a review of
the application, including -the conceptual pians, and has found the application to be
incomplete. In order for the Planning Division to deem the subject application complete,
please review and address the comments below, and submit revised plans along with
any other required items.
Pro ect Information
1. Include and/or revise the following data in the project information section(s):
av FAR-: 1,346/9,503®14%
b. Landscaping calculations for the front yard and the whole lot (This will
change) .
c. Parking calculations (This will change)
floor Plan
2.. Staff recommends closing off the doorway that connects -the bedroom to the
storage.
Parking
0. Per Rosemead Municipal_ Code Mable 17.112.040.1-, single --family dwelling units
require two (2) spaces per dwelling unit in an enclosed garage. In addition, one
(1) parking space per seventy-five (75) S.F. of floor area used. for assembly not
containing seats is required.
a. According to the proposed plans, a total of twelve (12) parking spaces are
required. Please revise your. plans to meet this: requirement. Staff
recommends removing the carport and using 25/p compact parking spots
to meet this requirement. If compact parking spots are to be utilized, all
1,70,
_1
stalls must be identified by painting "Compact" in each stall using letters
no less than ten (10) inches in height.
4. All parking spaces shall have a back-up distance of twenty five (25) feet. Please
move the parking spaces further up. This will decrease landscaping, so please
keep in mind that you will still have to meet the 20% requirement.
5. Per Rosemead Municipal Code 17.112.090(A)(2)(c), where a parking stall is
located abutting a wall, column, or similar structure, the stall width shall be
increased by two (2) feet.
a. The parking stalls under the carport shall meet this requirement. (it
propose carport is to be kept)
6. Please include directional arrows near the entrance of the driveway. Below is an
example.
7. Indicate how the parking area will be illuminated. Per Rosemead Municipal Code
Section 17.88. Exterior lighting shall be. of low intensity and shielded so that light
will not spill out onto surrounding properties or project above the horizontal plane.
a. Staff recommends parking bollards as the property is surrounded by
residential dwellings. Below is an example
l%
Public Safety
o. The Public Safety department would like more information pertaining to:
a. Daily Operation Schedule
b. Special events which would create noise or traffic
c. Celebration of any holidays (ex. Chinese New year, Tet, etc.)
Additional comments may follow as the City of Rosemead Planning Division receives
more information. Please feel free to contact me at (626) 569-2544 or
alao@ciiyofrosemead.org with any questions or concerns you may have. Rosemead
City Hall is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p,m., Monday through Thursday. Rosemead
City Hall is closed on Fridays.
Sincerely,
Annie Lao
Assistant Planner