Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Minutes of April 5, 2021 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 5, 2021 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Lopez at 7:25 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tang INVOCATION Commissioner Leung ROLL CALL Commissioners Berry, Leung, Tang, and Chair Lopez STAFF PRESENT City Attorney Thuyen, Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo, Assistant City Manager Kim, Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela, Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong, Building Official Fliehmann, and Commission Liaison Huang EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no comments, Chair Lopez opened and closed the Public Comment period. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT (MCA) 21-01 defining and establishing standards to allow the construction of homes on small lots with fee-simple ownership in the R-3 in areas zoned for multi-family to spur more fee-simple housing production and will not increase the allowed density permitted in the R-3 zone. The goal is to create new homeownership opportunities compared to that of traditional single-family homes or condominiums. PC RESOLUTION 21-04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 998 FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 21-01, AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING DEFINITION FOR SMALL LOT AND AMENDING THE DEFINITION FOR LOT AREA TO SECTION 17.04.050; AMENDING SECTION 17.12.010.C TO INCLUDE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF 17.12.020 INCLUDING TABLE 17.12.020.1 PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL USES AND SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION; AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF 17.12.030 INCLUDING TABLE 17.12.030.1 PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION; ADDING SECTION 17.12.030.B.2.g FOR SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 17.136.030.A TO ADD SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION IN SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 21-04 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 998 for the approval of MCA 21-01. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Page 1 of 13 Assistant City Manager Kim presented the Staff Report. He recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and ADOPT Resolution No. 21-04 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 998 for the approval of MCA 21-01. Commissioner Berry asked what other cities are implementing this, and what are the benefits other than owning a part of the land. Assistant City Manager Kim replied the City of Los Angeles started this Small Lot Subdivision, which was adopted in 2005. Subsequently after that, various other cities such as Westminster, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Burbank have adopted a similar type of ordinance, and cities such as Orange and Pomona are also in the process for review. He explained that traditionally, condominiums would mandate a property owner to join a Homeowner Association (HOA). It could be costly for homeowners as there are fees required to be part of a HOA, in addition to their mortgage. This implementation will help save each homeowner a fee into the HOA itself. Chair Lopez asked if we received any public comments. Commission Liaison Huang replied no public comment was received for this item. City Attorney Thuyen confirmed that there are no members of the public on the phone who would like to speak on this item. There being no public comment, Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Tang welcomed and thanked Assistant City Manager Kim for the staff report. He stated, Commissioner Vuong was initially on the Housing Development Subcommittee and attended the first meeting, and subsequently, he attended the second meeting. He added that when they walked through the small lot subdivision presentation at the Housing Development Subcommittee meeting, he thought this was a nice tool to encourage development and build homes for residents to live in Rosemead. He expressed that this is the innovative and creative thinking needed to address the housing and development needs in our community, and if successful, he believes other cities in the San Gabriel Valley would also follow. Commissioner Berry asked if this is specifically for the small lot sizes with a few units. Assistant City Manager Kim replied if you were to physically view the project itself, you would not be able to see the difference between a small lot subdivision and a traditional two- or three-story townhome project as they both look and function very similarly. He added, the only difference is that there is a little gap between each unit, and each individual unit sits on its own foundation and there is no attachment between the units themselves. He also added, the physical gap establishes a property line between the individual units and physically, it would be difficult to distinguish a small lot subdivision versus a traditional townhome project. Commissioner Berry inquired if there are any special amenities like a traditional townhome project, or if it is simply a driveway and a couple of small homes, where they can own the land underneath as well. Assistant City Manager Kim concurred, owning the land will provide fee ownership of the property, and if a homeowner was looking at creating value to their purchase, there are substantial benefits of owning the land versus going into a townhome, where you own the building but do not own the property in fee. He said, in title, the homeowner owns the property in fee versus traditional condominiums. Commissioner Tang stated that it does not have to be small homes on the lot, it can be one- or two-story traditional townhomes. Assistant City Manager Kim clarified that the home is not small. The lot itself is traditionally small with a standard sized home. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Page 2 of 13 Chair Lopez asked what the size of each unit will be. Assistant City Manager Kim stated it would depend on the size of the project, but it would be a typical townhome size, ranging from 1,200 sq ft to 1,800 sq ft. ACTION: Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Berry, to: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 21-04 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 998 for the approval of MCA 21-01. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. B. MODIFICATION (MOD) 21-01 - On February 6, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 88-447 (CUP 88-447), which permitted a transfer of ownership for a motel use, located at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard, in a Medium Commercial (C-3) Division, Planning Division, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, and Los Angeles County Fire Department, the City is initiating a modification to CUP 88-447 by modifying the conditions of approval to include operational conditions and a security system for the motel (Friendly Inn). PC RESOLUTION 21-02 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 21-01, A MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-447 TO IMPOSE UPDATED AND NEW CONDITIONS FOR THE MOTEL USE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD, IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE (APN: 5283-036-032) STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 21-02 with findings, and APPROVE MOD 21-01, subject to the 21 conditions. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela presented the Staff Report. She recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 21-02 with findings, and approve MOD 21-01, subject to the 21 conditions. Commissioner Tang asked how many rooms are available if the motel is at a hundred percent capacity and what is the definition of motel use in our Municipal Code. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied 50 rooms would be occupied at a hundred percent capacity. She added the requirements for a motel use is listed in Section 17.30.130, which defines the minimum numbers of rooms, and the minimum requirements that a motel should have; anything under 50 rooms would typically be considered a motel. Commissioner Tang asked if there is a limit to the duration of stay, and how is it different from a short-term rental or a hotel use. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied according to our Code, it is 30 days. Short-term rental is not permitted in the City, and a hotel use must submit transient occupancy tax. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Page 3 of 13 Commissioner Tang asked if there is transient occupancy tax for motel use and asked if the City conducts an audit on their tax or transient occupancy tax. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, there is a transient occupancy tax and believes the City does collect from them. Commissioner Tang mentioned the Staff Report stated that the owners do not maintain records of guests that stay and suggested the City address this by conducting an annual audit to ensure their records are maintained. Commissioner Tang asked if a guest maximized their allowed 30-day stay, could they leave for a day, and come back to stay for an additional 30 days. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied the Code does have requirements for extended days; the applicant (business owner) must apply for an extended stay in their CUP if they want guests to stay more than 30 consecutive days. Commissioner Tang asked if they stay for 30 consecutive days, leave, and come back, would that restart it to 30 consecutive days again? He indicated that this could be a loophole. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela asked to address the next question while she reviews the transient occupancy tax and 30-day occupancy requirements. Commissioner Berry asked if there are any issues with similar hotels or motels in disrepair, not keeping-up to code, etc., and what are we doing about those. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela answered we did not encounter any issues in terms of planning and zoning requirements with the other hotels. She added the Chief of Police is on the line to address any crime issues. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong stated as far as he is aware, there are no other motels or hotels in the City with anything near the crime activities that the Friendly Inn has had. Chair Lopez asked if they are still in operation. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela answered yes, the Friendly Inn is open, but is not operating with full capacity. Chair Lopez asked even with the modification, how will Friendly Inn get things straightened out. He indicated that they have not followed the rules for years, what is our plans with them to get things straightened out. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded that the Chief of Police recommended several security measures, and with these security measures, it would help alleviate the crime activities. Regarding the violation from the Planning, Building and Safety and the Code Enforcement Division, they are working closely with the business owner to ensure all violations are corrected. In the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP), they did not have many operational conditions of approval. She added the City initiated the modification with these conditions to correct these issues. Chair Lopez asked if the business owner is willing to make these changes. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela indicated that the business owner is on the line to speak. Chair Lopez noted he would like to hear from the business owner and said there is still violence going on even with a few of the rooms closed. He added that he understands the owner is trying to make some changes, but how will the City go about Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Page 4 of 13 making these changes? City Attorney Thuyen provided a background that this motel was operated awhile back before there were some extensive regulations and there was a CUP issued. That CUP did not have a lot of operational conditions and a part of the purpose here is to have a more specific expectation and standards for this motel use to operate in the manner that is safer and more organized. He said it would be the first step which gives the City some remedies in terms of enforcing CUP or impose citation if there are additional violations. He added there are more specific standards, and hopefully with the condition of approval, some of the health and public safety issues that were presented from the previous operation would be addressed. He also added staff is suggesting first to do a modification for the CUP, so we can have more specificity as to what the expectations are for motel operation. He continued that if there are violations, more standards can be enforced again. Chair Lopez asked if the modification passes, will the business close their operation to make these changes, or will it be an ongoing process which they will clean up as people are still staying there? City Attorney Thuyen suggested deferring to staff. He added that these things do not happen overnight and takes a little time to get everything worked out, but this is a start and there will be some more specific regulations that can help reach our end goal. Chair Lopez answered very good. Referring to Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela referred to Municipal Code Section 5.42.030 Letting rooms in excess of thirty days prohibited. No rooms shall be rented to persons whose occupancy exceeds thirty (30) consecutive days or exceeds thirty (30) days in any sixty (60) consecutive day period, unless such extended occupancy is authorized pursuant to a conditional use permit as provided in Section 17.112.030. This provision shall not apply to a maximum of one unit per motel or hotel complex designated for a manager's occupancy. Commissioner Tang thanked Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela for the clarification. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela provided the definition of a motel. otel means one or more buildings containing guest rooms without kitchen facilities, some or all of which have a separate entrance leading directly from the outside of the building designed and used as rental for temporary or overnight accommodations for guests and are offered primarily to automobile tourists or transients, with garages or parking spaces conveniently located to each room or unit. Chair Lopez and Commissioner Tang thanked Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela. There being no public comment, Chair Lopez opened and closed the Public Hearing. Representative Mr. Andrew Chen spoke on behalf of his mother, Mrs. Li Yuen Chen, who is the business owner of Friendly Inn and presented his statement. He stated the motel has been a part of his family for over 30 years, and ownership was transferred to his mother 23 years ago. He expressed how his family has operated and maintained this business relatively smoothly for a few decades. However, recent events have led to certain issues they are eager to address. He along with his mother, reviewed the Staff Report for Modification (MOD) 21-01 and went through all the conditions listed and stated they do not have issues complying with the majority of the conditions. However, there are a few requirements he would like to discuss. He addressed Ordinance No. 604, Item N, which stated rooms are not allowed refrigerators. Mr. Chen stated they would like to comply with the latest Municipal Code Section 5.42.140, which allows a small refrigerator for drinks. He added, a few of the modifications requested by the Chief of Police are not financially feasible. He expressed that installing a new surveillance system would be beneficial to the business and the community, however, adding ten (10) cameras on each floor is excessive. He indicated the first floor has much fewer rooms than the upper two quarters, and even then, he does not see Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Page 5 of 13 areas to install no more than 7 cameras for each floor. He spoke with Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela to request the Chief of Police stop by the motel, so he can help determine which location makes sense to install the cameras. Other than that, had no other any issues with the other camera requirements from the Chief of Police. The have armed security guards on site, however, he stated it is not financially feasible to maintain two-armed security guards 24 hours a day. He was quoted for $25 per hour for each armed security guard, which adds up to $1,200 per day. In their current state, they have rooms which are yellowed tagged and are currently in the process of doing a large-scale renovation, so daily income is less than $600. He stated at full capacity, it would bring in $3,250 per day. Mr. Chen emphasized as a small business, allocating over a third of their total income is not financially feasible, which leaves their business with no profit margin. He said they are eager to find a solution that works for the business, the City, and the community. They are currently remodeling all the rooms and have eliminated and blacklisted undesirable guests. He added their goal is to improve their standing in the community and rebuild a good relationship with neighbors and expressed they will do whatever it takes to comply with these modifications. He requested that the feasibility of these mandates is taken into consideration. Commissioner Leung asked what the business is going to do differently to make sure record keeping is accurate and present compared to the past. re trying to keep by the City. Commissioner Leung asked when the business blacklists someone, is it based on their legal California ID and database for reference? How do you blacklist a person? Mr. Chen replied they do not have any criminal records or information on probation or parole. He stated it is based on previous experience whether they destroyed a room or are not a good guest. They created a list which staff references. Commissioner Tang questioned how many employees are employed. Mr. Chen replied six employees. Commissioner Tang questioned employee roles. Mr. Chen stated four at the front desk staff and two housekeepers. Commissioner Tang questioned the business hours? Mr. Chen stated the business is open 24-hours and they always have someone at the front desk. Commissioner Tang questioned if a guest stops by at midnight, would you check the guest in? Mr. Chen stated that if a guest comes in at midnight, they can still be checked in. Commissioner Tang noted he is aware that the business wants to make improvements on the property, and added we only have criminal records for the past three years and mentioned how Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela reported there has been 237 calls to your location. He questioned if s to the motel 79 times per year, if that raises any concern to address these issues. Mr. Chen explained how some of the calls were incidents that happened outside the motel, such as occurrences that happened around the intersection. He added, he is aware that there is a lot of calls but not all calls were related to their Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Page 6 of 13 guests, and they are trying their best to make it a better place. Commissioner Tang mentioned he is aware that there are activities that occur outside their property boundaries. He mentioned how he lives very close to the Friendly Inn and notices crime activities are rampant in this area - discarded alcoholic containers, cigarette buds, and people riding bikes and skateboards in the middle of the night. He added that a lot of the patrons go through the residential streets to go to the Friendly Inn. He also added, these occurrences are not included on the statistics listed on the Staff Report and stated their business impacts the neighborhood. Commissioner Berry asked Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong how many incidents were associate with guests of the motel. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong responded based on the crime report listed in the Staff Report, none of those involved incidents that occurred somewhere else (where someone walks to the Friendly Inn to report the crime). He said all the incidents outlined in the Staff Report are incidents that occurred directly at Friendly Inn and involves the guests or their friends that are staying with them. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong emphasized that two murders have occurred at this single location. He added that he was assigned to Temple Station since December of 2013, and during the past 7 years, there has not been a single location in the City of Rosemead that has had two murders occur. He also pointed out that there have been multiple other shootings and if those victims died, it would have been six murders to date. He added, aside from what is listed in the crime report, he recently had a conversation with a mother who lives right down the street. She had communicated with him that due to the clientele that this establishment has brought to the City, she cannot walk her children down the street. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong emphasized that this area has gotten bad and urges the recommendations he put forth to help make the City a bit safer. Commissioner Berry asked Mr. Chen who oversees the six employees and what is his role in the business. Mr. Chen responded that his mother oversees the six employees. He assists with the maintenance at the establishment, and he works somewhere else. Chair Lopez opened the public comment period. Commission Liaison Huang stated four public comments were received. Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo read the public comments: th 1. Public Comment received on March 28 via email from Eric Wu: Hello, we live next to the Friendly Inn on Graves Ave. We have had many problems with the inn already regarding their maintenance and safety issues. Attached to this email are some pictures and videos of the problems. The issues: -We have seen leaks coming down the walls and leaking through into the dirt on our side which also causes some sewer like smell coming from there. It is shown in the pictures/videos below. This is an ongoing issue over many years. -People living in the inn and tossing trash down from the balcony onto the grass (including beer bottles that end up shattering upon impact on the street). Some pictures of that are also attached (a few of countless instances of trash being littered everywhere). This seemed to happen for months since the street sweeping vehicle comes by every Friday to clean up. But we kept seeing the glass in different places everywhere. We have called the inn many times to resolve this issue, but they did not. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Page 7 of 13 -Bullet casings found about 4 different times on the street or sidewalk between my house and the inn. There are no bullet casings found elsewhere, so the issue arises with the people staying at the inn that are a danger to the neighborhood. -Homeless, drunks, drug addicts. In the pictures, there is a grassy area that will often have homeless people trying to pitch a tent, drunks sleeping in the area, or drug addicts roaming this area causing a commotion, or very suspicious looking loiterers. This is right next to my house. We have had to call the police MULTIPLE times EVERY year because this inn attracts all sorts of bad people to the area. We cannot leave our house or even go out into our yard when this happens because we do not feel safe with these types of people around especially with older people in the house. -There have been inn customers that toss their cigarettes, bongs, and drug needles into our backyard from the balcony windows behind the inn (where the laundry is). -There are also some people that have been selling drugs over multiple years since we would see cars that would pull up in front of our house, mostly at night. They would park in front of my house, get out of the car and head in the direction of the inn for about 30 seconds to a minute, then come right back to their car with a pack in their hands. There is no reason to be in my neighborhood this late at night and heading to the direction of the inn since the entrance is on San Gabriel Blvd and not Graves Ave. All of these issues happen many times, not just once, but over the span of many years. Which is why we have to call the police many times every single year. Thank you. th Second email received on April 5 from Eric Wu: Hello, this is Eric again, next door to the Friendly Inn. I forgot to add in my previous email that there is also possible prostitution that had been happening in the inn too. I was reminded of that while talking to the neighbors. So there is the issue of drugs, violence, gangs, and prostitution with this inn due to being so cheap, that it attracts all sorts of unwanted people. This only brings more problems to our neighborhood. Thank you. th 2. Public Comment received on March 30 via email from Anthony Tran: Hello, I am writing this letter regarding the motel (Friendly Inn) on 2146 San Gabriel Blvd. I have many concerns regarding the security of our neighborhood due to this motel. We have many incidents in which people residing in the motel would trespass many homes around us. I have seen some people jumping out of the Friendly Inn's windows. They were always being chased by cops and many times when they run, they would jump into our yard and run all around to try to get away. It is a safety concern because it would frighten the elders we have at home. More importantly, if the people who live in the motel have weapons, it would not just result in us being frightened but also us possible getting injured or killed. If it becomes a shootout between the police and those who live in the motel. Too many people would get affected and this neighborhood would be dragged through the dirt for having so many bad reviews. We are concerned for our lives and for everyone's life around us. We appreciate it if this matter can be taken care of and thank you. th 3. Public Comment received on April 4 via email from Patricia Song: To the Rosemead Planning Commission, Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Page 8 of 13 We would like to provide inputs and public comments for the Friendly Inn public hearing but are unable to attend the meeting. Our comments are as follow: As long-time neighbors of Friendly Inn, we would like to provide our comments regarding the recent activities and events that have taken place at Friendly Inn. The recent public safety issues surrounding Friendly Inn and those staying there are of great concern to the neighborhood. We hope that the city can help the owners of the property develop a safer environment at the Inn and in the neighboring area. We have, in the past year, experienced burglaries, porch-pirating, and trespassers in the area. We hope to be able to work together with the City and Friendly Inn in improving public safety and quality of life in the area. However, we also believe it is important to note that we value the presence of Friendly Inn and do not support any plans that would involve modifying or changing the property into higher-density housing. While we understand the need to address any housing supply and demand issues, we are strongly against any plan that may affect the housing values and already affected quality of life in the neighborhood. We believe modifying the safety and security requirements and developing a sustainable and concrete facility improvement plan can help resolve the existing public safety issues at Friendly Inn. Thank you. th 4. Public Comment received on April 5 via email from Lauragam19: We are residents of Rosemead, CA and we received a Notice of Public Hearing on Case No.: MODIFICATION (MOD) 21-01. We live here for many years and things have changed a great deal since the operations going on at Friendly Inn. There have been numerous Firemen calls and ambulances at the said property and not very long ago even death in front of the motel. It is known that there are drug dealings and most likely sex trafficking going on in that facility as we notice suspicious loitering of people around the vicinity at dusk and even during the day and late at nights. There is a public Elementary School down the road on Graves Avenue and these illegal activities are not safe for the children living in this community. We see some kids walking home alone without adult supervision and passing through the motel. It is not safe for the kids to be walking by themselves, or even playing on the streets surrounding this motel due to this illegal activities going on. It is not a healthy environment anymore because of transients coming and going in that motel. There have been incidents of houses broken into in this community as well. Because of these problems we are witnessing and happening in our community, we sincerely request that this Friendly Inn (motel) be shut down due to illegal activities going on and it is not safe for the children and everyone else living in this community. We believe that this is in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. We pray that the City of Rosemead shall keep our community safe and clean and would only permit business establishments who operate under the CEQA guidelines and all establishments be subject for regular inspections relating to their activities for the safety of our community. Respectfully, Residents of Rosemead Chair Lopez closed public comments period. Commissioner Tang shared his comments and stated how this topic is very close to home, and shared similar experiences along with his fellow neighbors in the neighborhood. He said in full disclosure, he lives within the community, about 1,500 ft away from the establishment. Just down the street, less than a 1,000 ft away from the business is Rice Elementary School and if the school was in full operation, you can see there are kids and families that comes through Graves Avenue and San Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Page 9 of 13 Gabriel Boulevard all the time. He expressed his stance in supporting businesses in Rosemead and wants to see them thrive, but unfortunately, we come across a case where businesses along major corridors abut residential communities. If it synchronizes well, the business and the residential community can live symbiotically, but there are times where there are certain negative impacts that a business can have in its surrounding neighborhood. In this case, this business has had a tremendous negative impact on the surround community. Based on the Staff Report, there are 237 calls and two murders; the ultimate crime that can happen in a community and that is not including the number of crimes in and around that community. He added, from an anecdotal perspective, that he has had his car broken into twice; on two occasions and both overnight. As he walks his kids around the neighborhood, he often discovers discarded alcoholic beverage containers, and numerous amounts of cigarette buds. He refers to an incident where his neighbor across the street was yelling at someone at 2:00 a.m. that hopped over their fence to look in his house from the back yard. He expresses his fears and concern for this matter as he also has two daughters and a family that he lives with. The police were called, and the suspect was apprehended, and that case would not show up in the Staff Report as one of the many incidents that occurred. From an anecdotal perspective, this could happen in any community but what he has seen is that Friendly Inn has drawn those kinds of people into the community, and they would often be the ones who commit these crimes. He also added, there are people who ride their bikes and skateboards in the middle of the night which is alarming. Commissioner Tang questioned the consequences of a business that is in violation of a CUP or a business permit. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded the City has a revocation process for Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and indicated that the City can revoke a CUP if necessary. Commissioner Tang expressed how the business is fortunate to operate this long without any revocation of their CUP. He added, as he reviews the Staff Report, he thought that two-armed security guards were not sufficient; there should be one per floor, one in the parking lot, and maybe one in the front to check in the guests. Commissioner Tang recommended going above the suggested proposal and requiring two additional armed security guards to be stationed in the lot, if the Commissioners are willing to adopt these proposed amendments or even propose to revoke their business permit. Chair Lopez referred the question to City Attorney Thuyen. City Attorney Thuyen reminded the Commissioners that for this item, there is a recommendation from staff to modify the CUP to ensure a list of requirements for the business to operate to address the health and safety issues heard from the public and through public comments. He said, for the first portion, that would be considered a business license issue and that is separate from the item discussed tonight and advised the Commission not to engage in further discussion. He added, the second part of whether to revoke is a part of the reason staff has suggested the modification because the existing conditions in the CUP are baring. He also added this new set of modified conditions provides a lot more operational standards that are intended to address some of the public safety issues that staff has presented in the Staff Report and heard of in the public comments. Furthermore, he said adding additional conditions is permissible if that is the will of the Commission, but the only requirement would be the land use permit, which we would have to demonstrate a nexus between the public safety impact issues identified by this land use and connect it with the conditions we wanted to add. He stated, if we do have those, he asked staff to comment on whether those additional conditions would help assist the public safety issues and other land use related impact identified in the Staff Report for the record. He concluded that the Commission could articulate additional conditions and draw a connection between the impact of the land use and the additional conditions we want to impose, then we can add it as part of this modification. Commissioner Tang stated his rational behind the proposal. He said that if you are seeing this level of criminal activity and you want to put armed security guards, you need to make it clear to someone that wants to come to this place of business and wants to conduct criminal activities, that there are four-armed security guards, and this is not a place where they can do something like that. He points out, there has been two murders and the Chief of Police has not encountered a business that has two murders on site. He added, he does not believe two-armed security guards would be sufficient; they have 50 rooms, three levels, plus a large parking lot which is not enough coverage territory for two-armed guards to cover at full capacity. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Page 10 of 13 Commissioner Berry asked Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong to comment whether they should require the extra security guards. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong elaborated on his initial proposal. He believed that having two-armed security guards to be stationed in the parking lot 24-hours a day, seven days a week would be the absolute bare minimum and pointed out it would have to be in pairs. He added it is safer to have two additional security guards roam the motel as perimeter security or roving security type, it would be extremely beneficial. He noted that in the Staff Report, the motel is confirmed to be a haven for local gang members and criminals and when criminals that want to hide from law enforcement, there are no better place than the Friendly Inn Motel. Referring to the Staff Report, he said, they had people wanted for robbery from Orange County, people who committed a murder in the City of Covina, and armed carjacking occur in the City of Santa Monica who were suspects hiding at the Friendly Inn. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong emphasized it was reasonable and prudent to require an additional two-armed security guards. Commissioner Tang asked the Commissioners to evaluate if this business establishment is a recognized haven for gang members and criminals and questioned if the Commission wanted to be known as the City that has a motel that harbors these types of activities. He highlighted some of the criminal activities: possession of controlled sustains and paraphernalia, stolen vehicle on premise or brought to the premise or stolen from the premise, domestic violence, and loaded firearms. He then added, this is a rap sheet for any business that has gone through more than a few strikes. Chair Lopez asked staff for their intake on this item and if we should move or wait to see if this is possible. He believes this is a good idea. City Attorney Thuyen recapped and stated if the Planning Commissions will be to modify the conditions of approval, based on testimonies and evidence presented, if four-armed security guards at this location would better address the public health and safety impact, the Planning Commission can go ahead and suggest that as part of the motion. Chair Lopez said he thinks it is a good idea based on everything that has occurred and asked staff if the addition of two security guards is possible. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, a motion is needed to add and update the change to Condition No. 21. Chair Lopez asked the Commissioners if anyone would like to make a motion. Commissioner Tang motioned and made it clear to the business owner that any business that has 237 police activity calls including two murders, he is not even sure why the City would allow this type of business to operate with that number of criminal activities in the last three years alone. He added as a Commission, they want to work with all businesses; adding modifications and these amendments to the Conditional Use Permit and hopes that the business can still operate, but in a way that will bring a positive community. Commissioner Berry seconded the motion and concurred and stated a clear message needs to be sent to the business owner and people who frequent this business establishment that the City will not stand for this kind of behavior. He expressed that this gives him pause that many records are not upkept; without proper records of people staying there, who knows what is going on. Commissioner Tang asked if it is possible to insert language to allow an annual review of this site. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded that a condition was added. She said Condition of Approval No. 10 allows the Planning Commission shall conduct a six-month review of Modification 21-01 within six (6) months of the approval date. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Page 11 of 13 Commissioner Tang asked if there is a way to modify the conditions to six months of the approval date, and subsequently annually. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded if the Commission wishes. Commissioner Berry questioned if this can be done at the six-month mark. At six months, Commissioners can see how things progress and change modification or make other changes along the way. City Attorney Thuyen concurred and asserted this can be added in as an item if the issues have not been addressed by the six-month mark. ACTION: Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Berry, to: 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 21-02 with findings, and APPROVE MOD 21-01, subject to the 21 conditions, with AMENDED conditions to add two additional armed security guard. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo explained the 10-day appeal process. Commissioner Tang asked if staff could respond to residents that submitted comments and informed them of the actions taken at this meeting. Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo replied yes, staff can reach out to the residents that provided public comment. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC MINUTES 03-01-21 Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Leung, to approve PC Minutes 03-01-21 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo reminded Commissioners the next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for April 19, 2021. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Page 12 of 13 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Berry inquired about the status of other hotels and motels, such as staying clean, maintaining good repairs, okai Garden Hotel has a lot of rubbish outside and appears to be in disrepair. He asked, what about other places like that in the City. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained that the City occasionally receives complaints, and staff would input the request on a CRM (Citizen Request Management) and Code Enforcement would conduct a site inspection and work with Planning staff to ensure that the hotels or motels meet the conditions of approval. If a business is in violation, staff would write a letter notifying the business of the violations. Commissioner Berry asked what the City is doing to proactively ensure other businesses meet the conditions of approval. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong addressed his question and talked about the Rosemead Special Assignment Team. He said there are a total of ten deputies, and they work closely with Code Enforcement on all issues throughout the City. He added, he will ensure to address and inspect other motels in the City and work with Code Enforcement on that issue. Commissioner Berry asked if the City proactively goes out to keep an eye out on things. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong explained how its common practice for Code Enforcement Officers and Community Service Officers (CSO) to patrol the parking lots and make notes of any violation or anything relating to ordinance that needs attention. He said they usually brief us on that subject at least once a week if not more. He added, there has not been any motels in the City that has risen to this level. Commissioner Tang thanked staff and Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong for their hard work on this item and thinks it is great the City is taking ac He said some of the letters are not lit. He asked if staff could work with the property owner to fix this issue. He added, thousands of people see that sign as they drive on the freeway, and if some of the letters are off, it sends a bad branding message about the City. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, staff can contact the property manager to address this issue. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Lopez thanked staff and Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong for their hard work and adjourned the meeting at 8:49 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for April 19, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ______________________________________ ATTEST: Daniel Lopez Chair __________________________________ Angelica Frausto-Lupo Commission Secretary Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Page 13 of 13