Loading...
PC - Item 4B - Minutes of 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 Dang 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 Chair Dang STAFF PRESENT-City Attorney Thuyen,Community Development Director Kim,Assistant Planner Lao,and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Bob Bruesch, resident, stated their mailboxes had been robbed where he resides over the weekend. He stated there are 16 neighbors that share a common box and would like to request a mailbox at each residence instead of one at the end of their street. He asked what the process is to request a separate mailbox at each residence. He explained he had been a Council Member when this development was built and designated as a Planned Development zone because of the small lots. He has contacted the post office, but has not received any information. He asked if they would need to appear before the Planning Commission to request a zone change to accomplish their mailbox request. Community Development Director Kim replied he will research his request and will contact him as soon as he has the information. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Dang staled because this is a Special Planning Commission meeting he requested that City Attorney Thuyen give direction on what should take place. City Attorney Thuyen explained that Item 3, Public Hearing is indicated, but is incorrect, because there are no Public Hearing items, and recommended the 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 added at this time if there are public comments, it should be limited to the approval of the Resolution that is before the Planning Commission 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 1 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 Thuyen 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 explained the public hearing will not be reopened for public testimony,the purpose here is based on the previous Planning Commission meeting where there was a motion to move for denial of Conditional Use Permit 16-08. He stated the purpose today is to bring back the Resolution with the findings to support that denial and public comment will be allowed for discussion on that item.He reiterated that public comment would not be open, since it was closed at the last meeting. Commissioner Lopez stated that they are basically looking for a motion to accept the conditional use permit to establish that the religious assembly be denied and asked if that was correct. City Attorney Thuyen replied that is correct, but there a few steps before they get to that step, because the public comment period is allowed for this decision. Vice-Chair Tang asked City Attorney Thuyen since new information has been presented,from a legal standpoint, does he see this as a risk,or is there any precedent in regards to the Planning Commission denying this project. City Attorney Thuyen replied that the purpose of the last Planning Commission meeting for this item was to take testimony about whether or not to approve this conditional use permit. He stated he is not sure if there are any new facts to be presented at this point, and at that meeting there was a motion to vote for denial, so the purpose of this meeting is just bring back that resolution and make sure that resolution has findings consistent with the discussion at that meeting. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the community will be allowed to speak if they filled out a speakers request for this item. City Attorney Thuyen replied yes, there is an opportunity for public comment, but the public hearing will not be reopened for this item. He added that public comment will be allowed for discussion on this resolution before the Planning Commission. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the Planning Commissioners will also be able to have some dialog based on the comments from the public or will they be moving right into adopting. City Attorney Thuyen explained that they are not opening the public testimony period for the residents in terms of resident concerns or things of that 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. 2 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 dosed 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 permit. Public.comment today would be limited to any public comment on the Planning Commission's adoption of that resolution. Chair Dang thanked City Attorney Thuyen and called the first speaker. William Su, thanked everybody and stated he is here to urge the Planning Commission to reconsider their decision regarding this establishment.He stated the temple is willing to accept any conditions that the City would like them to comply with. He stated they are willing to follow limitations made by the City and address issues that the Mak family has brought up concerns such as smoke, incense,traffic, and to change the hours of operation to 10:00 am to 2:00 pm., to help with traffic and parents picking up their children from school at 2:30. He stated the applicant is willing to work with the City and the Mak family. They are a non-profit organization. They are here for the seniors and members to come and meet on the weekends. They are not here for any profit or any other purpose. He added that he hopes the Mak family will try to compromise and agree to let them have this establishment. He added everybody works five days a week and this gives them a chance to meet on the weekends and even though he is not a member of this temple, he was a former president of another association, and they do the same thing. He stated they had communicated with their neighbors and compromises were made. He thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. Ky Do, thanked the Planning Commission for their decision at the previous Planning Commission meeting. He stated Mr.William Su has made it very clear for him,so he does not have any more comments. David E. Brockway, thanked everyone, and reiterated the willingness of this particular association to try to work with the community 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 churches and temples to start out in homes, houses, assembling in neighborhoods to get started,and often continue that way for a period of time, and this is no exception. He stated they would like to continue in this neighborhood as they have been for 25 years. He said it has been indicated if the school hours are a problem, the temple 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 conform to what the community request. 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 3 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 over time 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 the previous Planning Commission 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 have been 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 not 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, which is to adopt this resolution. Howard E. Mattern, resident applauded the Planning Commission for their decision at the last Planning Commission meeting and commented it was the right one. He stated the applicant has shown that they are not responsible and they did not conform to anything that was asked in the last 20 years. He stated that he had used another church as an example that had been approved and the problems they had with that can extend to this one also. He stated there were parking problems there too. He expressed that this is not to keep a religious organization out of Rosemead, because they have other options,they have other temples in the area that they can probably join, or rent a space out. He added there is also a large property on Del Mar between Emerson and Hellman that would be ideal for this. He stated their plot, their land, is just not the right place for a temple and that is the main argument there. He thanked the Planning Commission. Nancy Eng, resident stated that this is her neighborhood, it is half a block away from her residence, and she has been there since the year "2000". She viewed the last Planning Commission meeting online and supports the Planning Commission's wisdom to deny the conditional use permit and resolution, and trusts their judgment. She thanked the Planning Commission for protecting the residents, the neighborhood,the quality of life,and the health safety of the students at Emerson School. Brian Lewin, resident commented that it is interesting that the applicant has stated they will follow all the rules and conditions because it is too bad they were not doing that before. He thanked the Planning Commission for unanimously acting on behalf of the residents for protecting them from having an inappropriate use being formally situated in their neighborhood and by their school. He also thanked the Planning Commission for showing respect, and support, for the Public Safety Division and Code Enforcement, who has worked very hard dealing with this site and the applicants noncompliance.He stated he has afew of questions pertaining to why they are here this evening,that he might get answers for, if possible. First, he asked if the City is ultimately required to approve this use operating in this specific location or does it legally have the discretion to refuse to allow it to operate there. Second,was the City legally required,considering there's a regularly scheduled meeting that would occur next week, to schedule a Special Planning Commission meeting for tonight 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, 4 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 Dang asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor or against this item. None Chair Dang 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 the time off to attend this meeting,to listen to the final resolution, and for their public comments. He asked the City Attorney to clarify it the Planning Commission's action tonight is to vote yes or noon the resolution. City Attorney Thuyen replied yes, and reminded the Planning Commission they are considering the adoption of this resolution that the Planning Commission had motioned at the previous Planning Commission meeting to deny the conditional use permit, even though they may have heard some new or different facts from the comment period. He also reminded the Planning Commission that the public hearing comment period has been closed and to limit their findings with the comments that were presented at the time of the hearing when public testimony was open. He reiterated that tonight's decision is whether or not to adopt the resolution denying the conditional use permit or if the Planning Commission has any other direction on that. Chair Dang thanked the City Attorney and requested that a motion be made. Vice-Chair Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve adopting a resolution denying the said Conditional Use Permit. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Recuse: Eng Community Development Director Kim stated the motion to deny the conditional use permit passes with a vote of 4 Ayes,0 Noes, and 1 Recuse. He also explained the 10-day appeal process. 5 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Kim announced the date, time, and location of two upcoming City events. 1)The Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony,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 appreciate 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 will be for Monday, December 4,2017,at 7:00 pm will be cancelled. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, December 18,2017 at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Sean Dang Chair ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 6