Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Conditional Use Permit 17-02 (Denial) 1827 Walnut Grove Avenue Staff ReportTO: FROM: ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DIVISION DATE: JULY 17, 2017 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02 (DENIAL) 1827 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE Summary On May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 17-02, a request to establish a card dealer school (vocational school use) at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #B110. After considering all testimony and facts available, the Planning Commission took no action on the Conditional Use Permit application (CUP 17-02), as the motion to deny CUP 17-02 resulted in a vote of two ayes and two noes. Since no action was taken with the initial vote, City Attorney Murphy explained two options to the Planning Commission: [11 continue this matter to a future Planning Commission Meeting where five Planning Commissioners are present or [2] continue to discuss the matter. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue this matter to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 19, 2017. The Planning Commission staff report and draft meeting minutes are included in this report as Exhibits "B" and "C". On June 19, 2017, the Planning Commission reconvened the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 17-02. At the end of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to deny Conditional Use Permit 17-02. In addition, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution (attached as Exhibit "A") for the denial of Conditional Use Permit 17-02. The Planning Commission staff report and draft meeting minutes are included in this report as Exhibits °D° and "E". Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider Resolution No. 17-10 to deny Conditional Use Permit 17-02. Public Notice Process This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Page 2 of 6 Prepared by: Submitte by: Cory Hanh Lily T. Valenzuela Associate Planner Interim Community Development Director EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution 17-10 B. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 15, 2017 C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated May 15, 2017 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 19, 2017 E. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated June 19, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT "A" PC RESOLUTION 17-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02, A REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOCATIONAL SCHOOL USE AT 8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD, UNIT #110 (APN: 5371-010-805), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (C-3/D-0)ZONE WHEREAS, on March 1, 2017, Steven Huynh submitted a Conditional Use Permit application; a request to establish a vocational school use at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #B110; WHEREAS, 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #110, is located in a Medium Commercial with Design Overlay (C -3/D-0) zoning district; WHEREAS, Section 17.132.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.132.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Conditional Use Permit applications; WHEREAS; on May 4, 2017, ninety-two (92) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations and on site, specifying ,the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 17-02; WHEREAS, on May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional Use Permit 17-02; WHEREAS, on May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to June 19; 2017; and WHEREAS; on June 19, 2017, the applicant and public provided additional oral testimony and the Planning Commission further discussed the matter. WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows:' Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Page 4 of 6 SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that sufficient facts do not exist to justify approving Conditional Use Permit 17-02, in accordance with Section 17.132.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. Approval of the application will not be or incompatible or injurious to other properties or land uses in the vicinity or create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. FINDING: The Planning Commission cannot make this finding. Approval of the application would create conditions materially detrimental to the public health and general welfare. The proposed use would be inconsistent with the character of the immediate vicinity of the project site and incompatible with the uses established within the existing shopping center. Gambling is perceived as an undesirable use by the general public and is not a permitted use in the City of Rosemead. Although the proposed use itself would not consist of gambling activity, permitting the proposed use would introduce an element into the shopping center with clear association with gambling. The proposed use would create the impression of gambling activity in a shopping center with uses that attract families, such as restaurants. The proposed use cannot be conditioned to mitigate these concerns so as to make the proposed use appropriate for the existing shopping center. B. The use is consistent with the General Plan. FINDING: The Planning Commission can make this finding. The Land Use Element of the General Plan aims to concentrate commercial and industrial businesses in established commercial, office, and industrial districts. The proposed use would be located in an existing shopping center on Valley Boulevard. Accordingly, the use will be located within a shopping center within an established commercial corridor.. C. The use is consistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. FINDING: The Planning Commission can make this finding. The project has satisfied all of the applicable minimum requirements of the Zoning Code. Namely, the proposed use would be allowed in the applicable zone if this Conditional Use Permit were approved. The project does not propose new development, so no development standards are at issue. The proposed use would be part of an existing shopping center that has sufficient parking as per the Zoning Code. D. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. FINDING: The Planning Commission can make this finding. Section 15061(b)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts a project from the California Environmental Quality Act if the project will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency. Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Page 5 of 6 E. If development is provided for under the Conditional Use Permit, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the applicable standards and Design Guidelines in the overlying district. FINDING: The Planning Commission can make this finding. The project does not include any new development. The scope of work is limited to only interior tenant improvements. SECTION 2. Because the Planning Commission cannot make all of the findings required by the Rosemead Municipal Code for approval of a Conditional Use Permit, the Commission HEREBY DENIES Conditional Use Permit 17-02, a request for the establishment of a vocational school use at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #110. SECTION 3. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.160.040 — Appeals of Decisions. SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on June 19, 2017; by the following vote: AYES: DANG, ENG, HERRERA, AND TANG NOES: LOPEZ ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicants and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 19th day of June, 2017. Chair Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Pape 6 of 6 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 19th day of June, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: DANG, ENG, HERRERA, AND TANG NOES: LOPEZ ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Lily T. Valenzuela, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP s M F ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION ® STAFF REPORT ,NCORPORATEO 1559 TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: MAY 15, 2017 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02 8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD, UNIT #B110 Summary Steven Huynh has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to establish a card dealer school (vocational school use) at 8.518 Valley Boulevard, Unit#13110 (APN: 5371- 010-805). The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing building. The project site is located in Medium Commercial with Design Overlay (C -3/D-0) zone. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to establish the vocational school use, within a Medium Commercial (C-3) zone. Environmental Determination Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing; licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, .or topographical features, involving negligible or no. expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Accordingly, Conditional :Use Permit 17- 02 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17.10: with findings (Exhibit"A"), and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 17-02, subject :to the 31 conditions outlined in Attachment "A" attached hereto. Property History and Description The project site is located on the south side of Valley Boulevard, between Delta Avenue and Walnut Grove Avenue. The project area consists of two {2) parcels totaling approximately 128,500 square feet of lot area. On October 18, 2004, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 03-112 forthe construction of three (3) commercial buildings, totaling 30,000 square feet of floor area. EXHIBIT «g,; Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2017 Page 2 of 13 Site and Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the zoning map as Medium Commercial with Design Overlay (C -3/D-0) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan: Public Facilities Zoning: Automobile Parking (P) Land Use: Utility and Parking South General Plan: Public Facilities Zoning: Open Space (O -s) Land Use: Utility East General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: Planned Development (P -D) Land Use: Residential West General Plan: Commercial and Low Density Residential Zoning: Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay (0-31D-0) and Single -Family Residential (R-1) Land Use: Commercial and Residential Administrative Analysis As illustrated in Exhibit "B", the applicant has proposed to establish a card dealer school (vocationaf school use) at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit#B110, which is located within an existing shopping center. The instructors of the card dealer school would provide training to prospective students on various card games. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to establish the vocational school use within a Medium Commercial (C-3) zone. Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2017 Page 3 of 13 Hours of Operation The applicant has proposed the following hours of operation: 11:00 am. to 8:00 p.m.,, daily. Site Plan and Floor Plan The applicant has not proposed any changes to the existing commercial site. The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing commercial site. The proposed floor plan consists of eight (8) training stations, common office area; office, storage room, and restroom._ Off -Street Parking Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.112.040,,a shopping center with more than four (4) tenants is parked at the following ratios: Centers with up to 100,000 square feet. of floor area: 1 parking space per 250 square feet; and Centers with over 100,000 square feet of floor area:. 1,parking space per 280 square feet. The subject shopping center holds more than four, (4) tenants and consists of 30,000 square feet of floor area. As such, the subject shopping center requires a minimum of one (1) parking space per 250 square feet of floor area. A minimum of 120 parking spaces is required for the subject shopping center. Accordingly, the shopping center has. provided 120 parking spaces. The subject unit consists of approximately 1.,473 square feet of floor area, Based on the applicable parking ratio, a minimum ofsix (6) parking spaces were required forthe subject unit. Six (6) out of the 120 provided parking spaces are apportioned to the subject unit. Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.112.040, trade school use is. parked at the following ratio - 1 parking space per 2 students, plus 1 parking space per 1 employee The applicant has proposed to maintain.a maximum of one (1) instructor and 10 students at all times: As such, the proposed; project would require minimum of six (6) parking spaces. The minimum number of parking spaces required for the proposed project would not exceed the minimum Humber of parking spaces required forthe subject unit. As such, no additional parking spaces would be required for the proposed project. A condition.of approval has been recommended to limit the number of students and instructors occupying the subject unit at any given time. Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2017 Pace 4 of 13 Municipal Code Requirements Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.16.020, approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to establish the vocational school use within a Medium Commercial (C-3) 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 project site is located within an established commercial corridor of the City. Conditions of approval will add protection for the public health, safety, and general welfare. As such, the project will not create any foreseeable significant negative impacts to the vicinity of the project site. B. The use is consistent with the General Plan, The Land Use Element of the General Plan aims to concentrate commercial and industrial businesses in established commercial, office, and industrial districts. Accordingly, the use will be located within a shopping center within an established commercial corridor. C. The use is consistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. The use is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. The project has satisfied all of the applicable minimum requirements 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 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 17-02 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2017 Page 5 of 13 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. The project does not include any new development. The scope of work is limited to only interior tenant improvements. Public Notice Process This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300 -foot radius public hearing notice to ninety-two (92) property owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader on May 4, 2017, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations and on the subject site. Prepared by: Submitted by: f i ---' Cory Nan Michelle Ramirez, Associate Planner Community Development Director EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolutiom17-10 B. Site. Olen and Floor Plan (Dated April 18, 2017) C. Assessor Parcel Map (APN: 5371-010-805) Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2017 Pape 6 of 13 EXHIBIT "A" PC RESOLUTION 17-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02, PERMITTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOCATIONAL SCHOOL USE AT 8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD, UNIT #13110 (APN: 5371-010-805), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (C-3/13-0) ZONE WHEREAS, on March 1, 2017, Steven Huynh submitted a Conditional Use Permit application, a request to establish a vocational school use at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #B110; WHEREAS, 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #B110, is located in a Medium Commercial with Design Overlay (C -31D-0) zoning district; WHEREAS, Section 17.132.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.132.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizethe Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Conditional Use Permit applications; WHEREAS, on May 4,.2017, ninety-two (92) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations and on site, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 17-02; WHEREAS, on May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional Use Permit 17-02; and WHEREAS; the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1; The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that Conditional . Use Permit 17-02 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2017 Page,7 of 13 existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination: SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Conditional Use Permit 17-02, in accordance with Section 17.132.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows; A. Approval of the application will not be or incompatible or injurious .to other properties or land uses in the vicinity -or create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. FINDING: The project site is located within an established commercial corridor of the City. Conditions of approval will add protection for the public health, safety, and general welfare. As such, the project will not create any foreseeable significant negative impacts to the vicinity of the project site. B. The use is consistent with the General Plan. FINDING. The Land Use Element of the General Plan aims to concentrate commercial and industrial businesses in established commercial, office, and industrial districts. Accordingly, the use will be located within a shopping center within an established commercial:corridor. C. The use is consistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. FINDING: The use is consistent with the applicable. provisions of the Zoning Code. The project has satisfied all of the applicable. minimum requirements 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 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, . licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 17-02 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 16301 of California Environmental Quality Act 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 does not include any new development. The scope of work is limited to only interior tenant improvements. Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2017 Page 8 of 13 SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES Conditional Use Permit 17-02, permitting the establishment of a vocational school use at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #B110, and subject to the conditions listed in Attachment "X, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. 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 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on May 15, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicants and the Rosemead. City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 2017. Daniel Lopez, 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 151h day of May, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES, ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Michel le_ Ramirez, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gregory M. Murphy, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP Planning Commission Meeting May 15; 2017 Page 9of13 ATTACHMENT "A" (PC RESOLUTION 17-10). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02 8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD, UNIT #8110 (APW 5371=010-805) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MAY 15, 2017 Standard Conditions of Approvals T. Conditional Use Permit 17-02 ('Project") is approved for the establishment of a vocational school use at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #6110, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "B", dated April 18, 2017. Any revisions to the approved plans must beresubmitted for Planning Division review and, if satisfactory, approval 2. The following conditions must be complied to the satisfaction of the Planning Division priorto fin -at approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request. 3. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly -onto any development plans subsequently submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions. 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 Planning Commission approval dater 5.. The on-site public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10 - day appeal period of Project. 6. Project is approved for a period of one (1) year. The. applicant(s) shall commence the approved project or request an extension within 30 calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall .be effective from the Planning Commission approval daze. For the purpose of this. petition, project: commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning and Building Divisions, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year, it shall become null and void: 7. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications to the project and to these conditions of approval Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2017 Paae 10 of 13 8. Project is granted or approved with 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 8/4 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 anytime 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. Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2017 Page 11 of 13 16. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings: Proieat Specific Conditions of Approval 17. Hours of operation shall be limited from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., daily. No person, except the owner and employees, may remain on the premises of the vocational school outside of the approved hours of operation. 18. A person shall not enter, be, or remain in any part of the vocational school while in the possession of, consuming, using, or under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug. a. No owner and/or employee shall permit any person in possession of, consuming, using, or under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug to enter or remain on the premises. b. Signs shall be posted stating this condition to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 19. A maximum of 10 students and one (1) instructor may occupy the vocational school at any given time. 20. Persons under 21 years of age shall not enter, visit, or remain on the premises of the vocational school. Notice of this condition shall be posted at the entrance to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 21. Adequate lighting shall be maintained inside the vocational school.and adjacent parking areas. 22. No.window(s) shall be obstrucfed, tinted, or otherwise, covered during business hours. 23. The, operation of the vocational school shall be solely for the purpose of providing instruction and training. Gambling and/or other forms of betting is prohibited on the premise. Simulated betting for the sole purpose of instruction and training may be permissible: 24. The vocational school shall not be promoted or advertised in a way to misconstrue the vocational school as a casino place where wagering takes place. 25. The operator(s) of the vocational school shall allow access to all areas and uses of the vocational school to law enforcement and code enforcement personnel at anytime deemed necessary by the City for the purpose.of inspecting the premise to verify come[, local ordinances, and any pliance with the conditions of approv other applicable laws. Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 15, 2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Lopez in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chair Lopez INVOCATION—Vice-Chair Deng ROLL CALL — Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Vice -Chair Dang and Chair Lopez ABSENT— Commissioner Tang STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, Associate Planner Hahn, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Murphy presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Ili 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17.02 — Steven Huynh has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to establish a card dealer school (vocational school use) at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #8110 (APN: 5371-010-805). The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing bullding. The project site is located in a Medium Commercial with [resign Overlay (C-300) zone. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Is required to establish the vocational school use within a Medium Commercial (C-3) zone. PC RESOLUTION 17.10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02, PERMITTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOCATIONAL SCHOOL USE AT 8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD, UNIT #8110 (APN: 5371.010-805), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (C -31D-0) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It Is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17- 10 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 17-02, subject to the 31 conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Chair Lopez asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked staff what was the previous use for this unit. Associate Planner Hanh replied it was a retail use. EXHIBIT 66C51 Commissioner Eng asked what type of retail. Associate Planner Hanh replied it was a gift shop. Commissioner Eng asked if there are other card dealer schools in this area. Associate Planner Hanh replied this will be the first with a conditional use permit. Commissioner Eng asked if there are any in the neighboring cities. Associate Planner Hann replied no. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant provided any market research to support the need for this use. Associate Planner Hann replied no. Commissioner Eng asked if the school or card dealer instructors are licensed by any licensing board or any regulatory agency. Associate Planner Hann replied he contacted the Department of Consumer Affairs to see if licensing was required and they stated it is not required. Commissioner Eng asked which agency he had contacted and if they licensed card dealer instructors. Associate Planner Hanh replied it was the Department of Consumer Affairs as well as the City of Westminster, which approved an AUP for this type of use, and neither require special licensing. Commissioner Eng asked if it was realistic to have 8 training stations, with one instructor, at a maximum of 10 students. Associate Planner Hanh replied the teaching methods may be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng stated Condition of Approval number's 26-31 have to do with fire safety and asked if those were from the Fire Department. Associate Planner Hann replied they are from a private fire safety company. Commissioner Eng asked if it was part of the original project requirement. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes; Vice -Chair Deng referred to Condition of Approval number 24, read it, and asked if these specific conditions of approval were set by Planning or was another sister agency involved. Associate Planner Hanh replied they were set by the Planning Division: Vice -Chair Deng asked if the Chief of Police reviews these types of applications because of the limitation of "21 and older'. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. He added the Chief of Police has reviewed this application and reported that he had no concerns. 2 Chair Lopez asked if all that is being done is setting up a class and teaching how to deal cards for casinos. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Lopez asked it there were any further questions or comments for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Steven Huynh, applicant, addressed a previous question regarding other schools in the surrounding area, stated there are 2-3 schools and named the cities. Chair Lopez asked if there is a certificate or license involved. Applicant Huynh replied when the student completes the training, they are tested on the procedures, and if they pass they are given a certificate. He explained the school also assist in finding the student a job and will set up auditions at casinos when the students are ready. Chair Lopez asked the applicant if the casinos are requesting these types of classes or is this idea. Applicant Huynh replied casinos do not provide classroom training for dealers. He explained his school provides classes to students wanting to learn on how to be a dealer, learn all the gambling games, and how to act at the table. He stated every casino has their own procedures, policy's, rules, and will train their employees, but they will not teach them to be a dealer. Commissioner Eng asked how long the applicant has had their business in the City of Westminster. Applicant Huynh replied 4 months. He stated that his partner had been his teacher, there is an interest in this community to learn to be a dealer, and he would like to open his business in Rosemead because the fees are reasonable, Commissioner Eng asked how are students recruited and screened, Applicant Huynh replied they advertise in Vietnamese newspaper, the Internet, and Facebook. Commissioner Eng asked who sets the rules and regulations if there is no formal type of licensing board. Applicant Huynh replied the each casino has their procedures, rules, and regulations. He added his students will receive a certificate from his school once they pass the test. He stated students may then enroll for auditions held at casinos for Asian or poker games. Hieu Nguyen, partner with Steven Huynh, stated they train new students with no experience, they are taught the basics from A -Z, step by step, until they graduate. He reiterated that each casino has their rules, procedures, and auditions. He explained they train each student to provide opportunity and assistance in finding employment. Chair Lopez asked if casino's have daily auditions or testing. Hieu Nguyen replied no, and explained they prefer experienced dealers. He added that training dealers usually take's 2-3 months and once they qualify and graduate, they will be sent to a casino for an audition. He gave a brief description of the types of gambling that is taught and stated the casino will also train the dealer once they are employed. Commissioner Eng asked if the training is normally only 2-3 months. Hieu Nguyen replied yes, 2-3 months ff the student attends every day for 4-5 hours per day, and the maximum time is 3-4 months. Commissioner Eng asked if the class is 4-5 hours each day. Hieu Nguyen replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if there will be 8 training stations, 1 instructor, and 10 student's maximum. Hieu Nguyen replied yes, and stated there are two classes per day. He added the first one is from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm, then there is a one hour break, and the second class is from 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Commissioner Eng asked how realistic that is because there are many different games to learn. Hieu Nguyen replied yes, there are many different games, and explained haw the students are placed at the table in the classroom. He added they prefer to have only 1 instructor because they all have a certain style, and they prefer the students to learn one style. Commissioner Eng asked if this is an opportunity for students to practice. Hieu Nguyen replied yes, they also learn how to cut chips and game procedures. He added the table is there to provide practice because casinos are looking for experienced dealers with skills. Commissioner Eng asked what the tuition fee for this school is. Applicant Huynh replied (not audible) the cost per class for the Asian games. Commissioner Erg asked if tees are based on which game the students want to learn. Applicant Huynh replied the Asian games the fee is $1,200.00 and explained how when he went to school years ago the fee was $4,000.00. He stated to learn Poker it is about $800.00. He stated all the, games are taught on just one Poker table. Commissioner Eng asked if security cameras will be installed inside the facility. Applicant Huynh replied yes, and there is an alarm system. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant will be planning to arrange casino tours as part of their services. Applicant Huynh replied: "He does know a lot of General Managers, he knows alot of people in the casinos, he workswith a lot of casinos from up here to up north, he knows manager, floor man, and actually big boss. He stated ' that when they have auditions he talks to them, he has his students and sends them all to take audition. He stated he does not buy jab in sell job here, a lot of people sell a job, but he does not do this, because it is not worth to sell a job to buy a job. He stated he wants the dealers to be trained good, when they take a test, they pass the test, they get hired, that's what he wants." 4 Vice -Chair Deng asked a question but it was (not audible). Applicant Huynh reiterated the hour's classes will be taught and there is a maximum of 10 students per class with i instructor only. Vice -Chair Dang asked if the hours of operation from 11:00 am to 8:00 pm where of his choosing. Applicant Huynh replied yes, and that he will be closed one day a week but hasn't decided which day (he is considering Sunday). Vice -Chair Deng commented that students may not want to wake up that early and that is why you open at 11:00 am. Applicant Huynh stated his other school opened at 10:00 am, but at this location he wants to open at 11:00 am and close at 8:00 pm. Resident, Brian Lewin, stated he would like to thank the Planning Commission for the multiple efforts to maintain the Annual Review of Walmart and he appreciates their repeated efforts. He stated with this application he still sees a potential for underutilization of resources with all the tables and does not see how the math all adds up in terms for using all the tables. He stated if there is a maximum of 10 students, then there is the potential of 5 tables being used at any given time. He stated that this sounds like an underutilization of resources that invites potential issues in terms of a temptation to exceed that rule. He stated you need to be careful and ensure that the capacity is appropriate for the location. He stated that he does not see anything here that is good for the public health, safety, and general welfare for the community. He stated the City has never allowed gambling and bringing in a vocational school, whose existence promotes gambling, and is depended on the promotional gambling, is a good thing for the community. He added that he knows conditions of approval have been incorporated to prevent actual gambling, Code Enforcement can check on those to make sure they are not doing anything like that, and check on how many students are attending. He expressed Code Enforcement is already overextended and he sees a use here that could provide an additional drain on the Code Enforcement and Public Safety resources. He recommended a better use for this facility, so that it would not be a potential use of drainage of those resources. He recommended that the !Tanning Commission not approve this item. Resident Jason Blakemoore stated he opposes this business because of the parking situation. He stated that there are eight vacant units in this plaza and expressed there is not adequate parking available for the existing businesses. He added employees are parking in the street now and there is one employee that parks in front of his home every day. He was told by that employee that his employer told him to park in the street because the plaza is for the patrons. He stated that customers leave trash on his street and he is picking it up constantly. He expressed that there is currently not adequate parking and with the school, student, and staff there will be more congestion and less parking. He stated his objection to this item is that there is inadequate parking. Betty Quan, resident of Temple City, stated that her concern is that there have been conditions set by the City to prevent gambling, but has something been requested of the applicant to have an internal policy to prevent gambling, and recommended that should be required. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments for staff. 5 Commissioner Eng stated she visited the site around 4:00 pm and was alarmed because there were three sheriff vehicles surrounding the building. She stated she managed to drive through the complex, but while driving away, she saw a sheriff approaching the unit with his gun drawn, and after her family experience she found this startling. She stated she called Community Development Director Ramirez and informed her of the incident Community Development Director Ramirez stated after Commissioner Eng called her in regards to this, it was found out that it was the applicant himself that had set oft their own alarm, which caused the sheriffs to arrive with their guns drawn. She explained that City Hall also has an alarm system and if it is set off, the Sheriff's Department will arrive with their guns drawn, and that is just how they arrive when alarms go off in that manner even with staff. She stated that home alarms systems have two types of alarms, one is an emergency, and the other Is a regular. She added if the emergency alarm is set off the sheriff's will show up with guns drawn, which she knows as this has happened to her. She stated these are the procedures they follow, this is what happened, and the applicant had just set off their own alarm. Commissioner Eng stated she is unable to support this project and that the use 1s riot an appropriate use for this location and will be detrimental to the public health and general welfare of the community. She stated in spite of this being a vocational school it does promote gambling and gambling is a persistent health issue, partioulady in Asian communities. She stated she personally knows a number of families that have been tragically impacted by gambling including suicide, Vice -Chair Deng stated he has visited that plaza numerous times, there is not enough parking, and he himself has circled a few times, and sometimes waited 5-10 minutes for someone to leave. He stated parking is definitely an issue. He added that he understands staff has had a parking analysis done, which was appropriate, and to coda, however since this is a vocational school and will be geared for adults. He stated more than likely each adult will be driving, and with 10 students, plus the operator there will be an additional 11 cars. His second concern is that there isn't a public necessity for this type of schooling, it does not provide a public benefit it's not like a medical office, or something the City or residents would really need. He stated surrounding the operation of the building while the school is in business for the peak hours there are families visiting the plaza, shopping, dining, and walking around the shops he pictures the school not having the windows not tinted and without signs families will be able to view adults learning to be dealers. He stated there will also be a sign stating 21 or older also, so even though we know the business is running legally the patrons do not, so this paints a negative cogitation to them and they may feel they are gambling. He expressed this particular location is not good for the City of Rosemead and does not sit well with a family shopping center: Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Dang that the Planning Commission to not ADOPT Resolution No. 17•11D with findings and not APPROVE Conditional use Permit 17-02; subject to the 31 conditions, Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang and Eng Noes: Lopez and Herrera Abstain: None Absent: Tang City Attorney Murphy stated the vote is Ayes 2 and Noes 2 and explained that no action is taken this evening. He explained there are two options: (1) continue this matter to a future meeting where there are 5 Planning Commissioners present, or (2) continue to discuss it now. Community Development Director Ramirez stated if option one is taken, then the next Planning Commission meeting where all the Planning Commissioners will be present will be Monday, June 19, 2017, Chair Lopez recommended the item be Continued to Monday, June 19, 2017. Commissioner Eng stated she agrees. Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eng to Continue Resolution No. 17-10 with findings and Conditional Use Permit 17-02, subject to the 31 conditions, to the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, June 19, 2017. Vote resulted In: Ayes: Deng, Eng, Herrera, and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director Ramirez stated this item will be brought back on Monday, June 19, 2017 to be reconsidered with all Planning Commissioners present. Vice -Chair Dang asked if staff should reach out to the Planning Commissioner that is not present to see if they will be available on June 19, 2017. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff will take care of that. City Attorney Murphy stated if it is announced that a Planning Commissioner cannot be present, then a brief staff report reciting that and include the dates where they can be present, rather than having the Planning Commission decide on another date to Continue this item again. 4. CONSENTCALENDAR A. Minutes of 5.1-17 Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Dang, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: Herrera Absent: Tang Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with a vote of 3 Ayes 0 Noes and 1 Abstain, 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced the time, date, and location of the Community Area Watch Committee and the Memorial Day Ceremony. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Vice -Chair Dang stated at the last Planning Commission meeting it had been requested that Grocery Outlet provide more lighting in the parking lot and he reported they did take care of the situation. Chair Lopez thanked staff for addressing his concerns at the Angelus Senior Housing and stated the elevator and scanner are working. He stated the carpets in the hallway are filthy and requested they get cleaned or replaced. Community Development Director Ramirez stated she will check on this request. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:40 pm. The next regular Planning Commission will be held on Monday, June 5, 2017, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. _r 1 Daniel Lopez �% c Chair J Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 3 i i ii 1 i 7 7 i 3 a U ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION o � 4 STAFF REPORT NPO SP 1959 - TO: THE. HONORABLE CHAIR AND. PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE:. JUNE 19, 20'17 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02 (CONTINUED) 8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD, UNIT #B11.0 Summary Steven Huynh has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to establish a card dealer school (vocational school use) at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #B1 (APN: 5371- 010-805). The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing building. The project. site. is located in a Medium Commercial with Design Overlay (C -3/D-0) zone. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to establish the vocational school use within a Medium Commercial (C-3) zone. On May 15; 2017, the Planning Commission took no action on the Conditional Use Permit application (CUP 17-02), as the motion to deny CUP 17-02 resulted in a vote of two ayes and two noes. Since no action was taken with the initial vote, City Attorney Murphy explained two options to the Planning Commission: [1] continue this matter to a future Planning Commiss?on Meeting where five Planning Commissioners are present or [21 continue to discuss the matter. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue this matter to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 19, 2017. Environmental Determination. Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts projects consisting of the: operation, repair, maintenance; permitting,. leasing, licensing, orminor alteration of existing public orprivate structuress facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical,featui'es, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time:& the lead agency's.determination. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 17- 02, is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of California. Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Staff Recommendation . It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17-10 With findings (Exhibit "A"), and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 17-02, subject to the 31 conditions outlined in Attachment W attached hereto. EXHIBIT "D" Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 11 Municipal Code Requirements Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.16.020, approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to establish the vocational school use within a Medium Commercial (G-3) 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 project site.is located within an established commercial corridor of the City. Conditions of approval will add protection for the public health, safety, and general welfare. As such, the project will not create any foreseeable significant negative impacts to the vicinity of the project site. B. The use is consistent with the General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan aims to concentrate commercial and industrial businesses in established commercial; office, and industrial districts. Accordingly, the use will be located within a shopping center within an established commercial corridor. C. The use is consistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. The use is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. The project has satisfied all of -the applicable minimum requirements 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 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing,. or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 17-02 is classified as a Class 4 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of California Environmental Quality Act 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 June 19, 2017 Page 3 of 11: . The project does not include any new development. The scope of work is limited to only interior tenant improvements. Public Notice Process This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Prepared by: ( Submitted by: ° Cory Hanh Michelle Ramirez Associate Planner Community Development Director. EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution 17-10 with Attachment "A" (Conditions of Approval). B. Planning Commission Staff Report—CUP 17-02 (May 15, 2017) C. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2017 Page 4 of 11 EXHIBIT `°A" PC RESOLUTION. 17-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02, PERMITTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOCATIONAL SCHOOL USE AT 8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD, UNIT #13110 (APN: 5371-010-805), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (C -3/D -O) ZONE WHEREAS; on March 1, 2017, Steven Huynh submitted a Conditional Use Permit application, a request to establish a vocational school use at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #B110; WHEREAS; 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #B110, is located in a Medium Commercial with Design Overlay (C -3/D-0) zoning district; WHEREAS, Section 17.132.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.132.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Conditional Use Permit applications; WHEREAS, on May 4, 2017, ninety-two (92) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject .property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations and on site, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for, Conditional Use Permit 17-02; WHEREAS, on May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional Use Permit 17-02; WHEREAS, on May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to June 19, 2017; and WHEREAS„ 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: Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2017 Page 5 of 11 SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that. Conditional Use Permit 17-02 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant.to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts proJects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Conditional Use Permit 17-02;.in accordance with Section 17.132.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. Approval of the application will not be .or incompatible :or injurious to other properties or. land uses in the vicinity or create conditions materially detrimental to the public.health, safety and general welfare. . FINDING: The project site is located within an established commercial corridor of the City. Conditions of approval will add protection for the public health, safety, and general welfare. As such, the project will not create any foreseeable significant negative impacts to the vicinity of the project site. B. The use is consistent with the General Plan. FINDING: The Land Use Element of the General Plan aims to concentrate commercial and industrial businesses in established commercial, office, and industrial districts. Accordingly, the use will be located within a shopping center within an established corn m�ercial ccrndor: 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. The project has satisfied all of the applicable' minimum requirements 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 1530:1 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance; permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing: public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination: Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit,17-02 is classified as a CIass 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15.301 of California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2017 Page 6 o€11 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 does not include any new development, The scope of work is limited to only interior tenant improvements. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES .Conditional Use Permit 17-02, permitting the establishment of a vocational school use at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #13110, and subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 'W', attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. 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 17.180.040—Appeals of Decisions. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on June 19, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicants and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 19th day of June, 2017. Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2017 Page 7 of 11 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 99th day of June, 2617, by the following vote: AYES; NOES: ABSTAIN. ABSENT: Michelle Ramirez, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP y Planning Commission WoUng June 19, 2017 Page 8 of 11 ATTACHMENT"A" (PC RESOLUTION 17-10) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-02 8518 VALLEi( BOULEVARD, UNIT #B110 (APN: 5371-010-805) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL JUNE 19, 2017 Standard Conditions of Approvals 1. Conditional Use Permit 17-02 ("Project") is approved for the establishment of a vocational school use at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #B110, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit"B", dated April 18, 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 listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans subsequently submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions. 4 Approval of Project shad 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 Planning Commission 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 is approved for a period of one (1) year, The applicant(s) shall commence the approved project or request an extension within 30 calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the Planning Commission approval date= For the purpose of this. petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning and Building Divisions, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year, it shalt become null and void; " 7. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications to the project and to these conditions of approval_. Planning Commission Meeting June 19,20V Page 9 d 11 8. Project is granted or approved with 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 (5) 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.ri . 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. Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2017 Page 10 of 11 16, Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. ProiectSpecific Conditions of Approval 17. Hours of operation shall be limited from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., daily. No person, except the owner and employees, may remain on the premises of the vocational school outside of the approved hours of operation. 18. A person shall not enter, be, or remain in any part of the vocational school while in the possession of, consuming, using, or under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug: a. No owner and/or employee shall permit any person in possession of, consuming, using, or under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug to enter or remain on the premises. b. Signs shall be posted stating this condition to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director_ 19. A maximum of 10 students and one (1) instructor may occupy the vocational school at any given time. 20. Persons under 21 years of age shall not enter, visit, or remain on the premises of the vocational school, Notice of this condition shall be posted at the entrance to the satisfaction of the Planning Division: 21. Adequate lighting shall be maintained inside the vocational school and adjacent parking areas. 22. No window(s) shall be obstructed, tinted, or otherwise covered during business hours. 23. The operation of the vocational school shall be solely for the purpose of providing instruction and training. Gambling and/or other forms of betting is prohibited on the premise. Simulated betting for the sole purpose of instruction and training maybe permissible. 24. The vocational school shall not be promoted or advertised in. a way to misconstrue the vocational school as a casino place where wagering takes place. 25. The operator(s) of the vocationalschool shall allow access to all areas and uses of the vocational school to law enforcement and code enforcement personnel at anytime deemed necessary by the City for the purpose of inspecting the premise to verify compliance with the conditions of approval,; local ordinances; and any other applicable laws. Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2017 Page 1, 9 of 11 Fire and life Safety Conditions. of Approval 26. An approved number or address shall be provided on.ail new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street.or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4." high by 112" stroke and be a contrasting background. [Fire Code, Section 505.11 27. The suite address designation shall be installed on or near all exterior doors of the suite in 2 -inch high numbers. or letters on a contrasting background. [Fire Code, Section 505.11 28. Portable fire extinguishers with.a minimum rating of "2A10BC". must be provided for this unit. The maximum coverage area is 6,000.square feet per extinguisher and the maximum travel distance shall not exceed 75 feet. Mount fire extinguishers in a visible and accessible location with: its top located, not more than 5 feet above tha floor for extinguishers. The clearance between the floor and the bottom of installed hand-held extinguishers shall not be. less than 4". [Fire Code, Section 906] 29. The existing fire sprinkler system shall be modified in according to new walls and ceiling layout. The fire sprinkler system. modification requires a separate plan check submittal and approval. [Fire Code, Section. 901.21 30. Additional exitsigns may be required at the time of final inspection,if the ones provided do not meet the intent of the code. [Fire Code, Section 1013] 31. T he general contractor, the owner.or the tenant shall conform that the 5 -year certification of the fire sprinkler is current; .If the system' is not certified, the respons'ib16 party shall contact a qualify company, prior to final inspection, to certify the system. The system nserrshall bear the iabetof the, company that. has issued the fire -year certification. [Fire Code; Section 901.61 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 19, 2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Lopez in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE— Commissioner Eng INVOCATION — Commissioner Herrera ROLL CALL — Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Tang, Vice -Chair Dang and Chair Lopez STAFF PRESENT - City Attorney Thuyen, Community Development Director Ramirez, City Planner Valenzuela, Associate Planner Hanh, Assistant Planner Lao, and Administrative Assistant Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DESIGN REVIEW 17.03 - James Pham has submitted a Design Review application to construct a new two-story single-family dwelling unit with 3,547 square feet of floor area at 3058 Jackson Avenue (APN: 5286.023-025). Any new dwelling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of developed living area shall be subject to a Discretionary Site Plan and Design Review. The project site is located in a Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zone. PC RESOLUTION 17=12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION .OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 17- 03, PERMITTING A NEW 3,547 SQUARE FEET SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT WITH AN ATTACHED THREE -CAR GARAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3058 JACKSON AVENUE (APN: 528&023- 025), IN THE LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE, Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17- 12 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 17.03, subject to the 31 conditions. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Lopez asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng disclosed that she lives on the same block as the project that is being presented; it is within the 500 yard radius, and recused herself from this item. Commissioner Tang asked if the driveway gate is a sliding gate that opens up to the driveway or is it an angular gate. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is a sliding gate, 1 EXHIBIT "E" Commissioner Tang asked if it will encroach upon the walkway of the entrance or which way will it slide. Assistant Planner Lao replied she will defer that question to the architect. Chair Lopez commented it was a beautiful design and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Dat Wong referred to Commissioner Tang's question and stated the sliding gate will slide to the right and is more than 10 feet away. Commissioner Tang commented that it does not look like that in the picture but agreed if that is what the scale shows. He commented it is a beautiful design. Vice -Chair Dang commended the applicant on his nice architectural design. He added it is a nice symmetric and balanced design, applauded the applicant, and staff for working together to come up with a nice design. He asked if the rod iron fence color is black or an earth tone color. Applicant Wong replied it is brown color. Vice -Chair Dang stated it will be a color that mimics the house. Applicant Wong replied yes and it will match the eaves surrounding the house. Vice -Chair Dang stated he appreciates the fact that he took that into consideration and just not create a house but extended the architectural taste to the fences and closures. He asked if there was a block wall surrounding the home. Applicant Wong replied there is an existing block wall on the left hand side and explained the color does not match, it is gray, and does not match the rendering. He added staff has requested he change the color to earth tone colors to match the surrounding. He has agreed and will revise the plan to say it is going to be a different color. Vice -Chair Dang asked if he is suggesting that he will remove and replace the wall_ Applicant Wong replied no. Vice -Chair Dang asked if the existing block wall is gray and if they are planning to paint it a matching color. Applicant Wong replied yes, that can be done also, but only on their side. Commissioner Tang asked to clarify if it will be painted to match the earth tone colors of the home. Applicant Wong nodded yes. Commissioner Tang asked if this home will be owner -occupied. Applicant Wong replied yes. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further comments or questions. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions for staff. None Chair Lopez asked for a motion. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 17.12 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 17.03, subject to the 31 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Recuse: Eng Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Recuse vote and explained the 10 -day appeal process. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17.02 (CONTINUED) - Steven Huynh has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to establish a card dealer school (vocational school use) at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Unit #8110 (APN: 5371.010805). The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing building. The project site is located in a Medium Commercial with Design Overlay (C -3/D-0) zone. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to establish the vocational school use within a Medium Commercial (C-3) zone: On May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission took no action on the Conditional Use Permit application (CUP 17.02), as the motion to deny CUP 17-02 resulted in a vote of two ayes and two noes. Since no action was taken with the initial vote, City Attorney Murphy explained two options to the Planning Commission: 11] continue this matter to a future Planning Commission Meeting where five Planning Commissioners are present or [2] continue to discuss the matter. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue this matter to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 19, 2017. PC RESOLUTION 17.10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE; CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17.02, PERMITTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOCATIONAL SCHOOL USE AT 8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD, UNIT #8110 (APN: 5371.010-805), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (C -3/D-0) ZONE. Staff Recommendation- it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17- 10 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 17-02, subject to the 31 conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. 3 Chair Lopez asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang asked what will be the name of the business. Associate Planner Hanh replied that question will have to be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Tang stated his questions are appropriate for the applicant, so he will wait for the applicant. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Steven Huynh stated he works at the Hawaiian Garden Casino as a card dealer and has been in this casino for thirty -something years. He stated he has a lot of experience with casinos and opened a school in Westminster, which has been open for 6 months. He stated he has not had any problems with the City and has done whatever they have requested to get permission to open. He said 6 of his students have obtained employment at Hallow Park and Hawaiian Gardens. He stated that he did not know that every City has different hearings, explained what the City of Westminster required, and he had asked Associate Planner Hanh if it would be allowed that he speak at the hearing. He added that there are a lot of people that live in Monterey Park and Rosemead that work at the casino in the City of Commerce. He stated that he is trying to create opportunities for employment, he is not promoting gambling, and tells his students they should not gamble, but they can make money by being a card dealer, and that is why he wants to open a school.. He stated most card dealers have attended schools, the City of EI Monte has 2 schools and the City of Monterey Park has 1 school, and that is why he is trying to open a school in this City. He stated he has come to the City of Rosemead and spoke with Associate Planner Hanh quite often and has told him he will do whatever the City would like him to do to get his license for his school. He added that he would like to get a business started, provide opportunities for jobs, and keep himself busy. He stated he would like the opportunity to do something for the City because there are so many casinos and the City that he currently has a business in does not have any concerns. He presented a reference letter from Kathy Buchoz, a Business Consultant, for the Planning Commission to read. He reiterated that he has been open for 6 months and there have not been any problems or complaints. Community Development Director Ramirez requested that the applicant give the letter to the Administrative Assistant so the Planning Commission may read it. Chair Lopez asked if there were any questions or comments for the applicant. Commissioner Tang asked what the name of his business is. Applicant Huynh replied "Dealer School'. He explained in the City of Bolsa where he currently has a business inside the store it is "Bolsa Dealer School' and if he opens a dealer school in Rosemead, then he will put 'Rosemead Dealer School', Commissioner Tang asked if the sign in front of his business will state "Rosemead Dealer School". Applicant Huynh replied no, it will be just "Dealer School' because that is what his license states. He stated just inside the business he will put Rosemead. Commissioner Tang asked who will be training the students. Applicant Huynh replied he will be. Commissioner Tang asked if there will beaky other hired instructors helping him. Applicant Huynh replied yes, there are two classes (one in the morning and one in the afternoon), and is planning to have a co-worker to help him teach. Commissioner Tang asked if the school is another business in addition to his job. Applicant Huynh replied yes, it is a business related to his job because he is a dealer, he knows a lot of people, and he works at the casino. He stated that he has 30 years' experience, he sees the game every day, knows the rules, he tries to teach his students not to gamble, and if they gamble they will not win. He stated it is a good job for them, to go to school, and learn to become a dealer to make money. Commissioner Tang asked if this business will have 1 instructor and up to 10 students Applicant Huynh replied yes. Commissioner Tang asked how long the classes are Applicant Huynh replied he teaches very fast and takes about 2 months. He explained the first month he teaches all the policies because every casino has different policies and rules. He stated he teaches the general policy first for different casinos and when his students go for auditions he will teach the students the different rules of that casino, how they deal the cards, and their procedures. Commissioner Tang asked if the students go to this school full-time or how many days do they attend within a week. Applicant Huynh replied it depends because some students have jobs, so they may only come 2 days a week and it will take a little longer. He added if the student does not have a job, then they are able to come 5 days a week and get through faster. Chair Lopez clarified that Commissioner Tang is asking if the class is an 8 -hour class day or a 5 -hour class day. Applicant Huynh replied it is a 4 -hour class, the first one is in the morning beginning at 11:00 am to 3:00 pm, and there is another 4 -hour class in the afternoon from 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm. He added it will take about 2 months if they attend every day. Chair Lopez asked if this class is based on how often the student can attend, so it may take some students two months if they don't work, and if they do work it may take 3 months. Applicant Huynh replied yes, it may take them a littlelonger, but he still charges the same. He stated he may charge less than any other school near here: Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments for the applicant. i None i Chair Lopez called resident Brian Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin stated the applicant mentions that gambling is bad and yet he wants to open aschool teaching gambling in the City of Rosemead, which has never allowed gambling or casino's to his knowledge. He added the 5 applicant's comments underscore the fact that this school clearly fails the public health, safety in general, and welfare test. He expressed this is something that is not needed in the community. He added that gambling affects poor communities and there is a fair amount of lower income families in this community. He stated promoting gambling is not a direction the City should be going in and having a school in a shopping center, in the middle of the City, is promoting gambling. He requested that the Planning Commission consider this application and reject it. Chair Lopez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing. He commented that what he is hearing is that the City does not want a class. He stated that this is not gambling, the applicant is going to teach students how to work, and learn a trade like anyone wanting to go to school. He added he is not here to judge if it is needed in the City, he is here to judge the fact of what brings revenue into the City. He reiterated the applicant is not bringing in gambling, he is bringing in a classroom to teach, and, in that teaching, he is getting people work. He commented that is the basis of what this application is and what needs to be considered. He added that this needs to be looked at as a class only because that is all that it is. Commissioner Tang stated he did not see any limitations on advertising in the conditions of approval. He asked if the applicant's business can advertise images or advertisements that are associated with gambling. Associate Planner Hanh read Condition of Approval number 24, and replied no, they will not be able to. Commissioner Tang asked if that definition broadly defines that it is not allowable. Associate Planner Hanh replied the condition of approval can be broadened with the assistance of the City Attorney, if the Planning Commission wishes. City Attorney Thuyen stated the condition of approval can be modified. The way he understands it is that this condition is geared towards making sure there is no promotions or advertisements that allows this business to be seen as a casino or a place where gambling takes place. He asked Commissioner Tang to articulate what other potential issues he sees that they may use to modify this condition. Commissioner Tang recommended that it include: "as a casino place where wagering takes place or gambling may occur". City Attorney Thuyen replied that condition can be modified accordingly. Commissioner Tang stated the City Attorney can come up with the exact language and asked if that can just be inserted: City Attorney Thuyen replied yes, and recommended if there are anticipations to several modifications to the conditions it may be best to have a discussion first, as to which conditions to modify. He added then there will be a consensus integrated into one motion as to oppose to having several motions be entertained. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were other conditions of approval that need to be modified. Vice -Chair Dang stated he would like to echo his comments from the last Planning Commission meeting and thanked the applicant for bringing business to the City of Rosemead. He added he also supports Chair Lopez's comment about this just being a business and not really promotion of gambling. He stated Mr. Huynh is a business person and this is a business opportunity to teach a class. He stated his concern is the location of this school being in a 0 strip/retail center, where there are shops, restaurants, families having dinner, and walking around looking into the shops. He stated this school (by condition of approval) will not be able to obstruct their windows, where patrons can look and see what ishappening inside this school He stated it seems out of sorts that you will see adults, tables, chips, cards being dealt, and a sign that restricts that no one under 21 allowed. He stated for a family strolling through it is not fostering an image that the City of Rosemead is particularly proud of. He expressed that the school is in the wrong location and he has no reservation on the school itself. He stated, for example, if this school was located in a building on its own parcel of land, where no family or people are strolling through that area, and in that case they could conduct their business as will, and no one would really mind. He added it is not really the business itself that he has reservations for, it is just the location, and the fact that the windows cannot be obscured, and you have an activity that does not foster the City image. Commissioner Tang stated he was not present at the Planning Commission meeting the first time this was presented, which ended in a tied vote. He added he read through the previous minutes and he agrees with Chair Lopez's comments that this application is not promoting gambling, it is about the promotion of jobs. He stated any type of resource, support, that can help families learn a skill or craft, and to achieve sustainable jobs to support their families is a good thing. He added that he also agrees with Vice -Chair Deng assessment that this is a family shopping center and there is an image that displays that is not part of the fabric of what they are trying to identify in this shopping center. He added this is not what the City is trying to achieve in terms of attracting businesses to make it a vibrant place for families to visit, eat, shop, and play. He apologized to the City Attorney for requesting that Condition of Approval number 24 be modified and stated he is going to vote against this item. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments None Chair Lopez requested a motion. Vice -Chair Deng requested assistance from the City Attorney on how the motion shall be presented Community Development Director Ramirez stated if the Planning Commission wishes to Deny this item, then it would be with a Resolution recommending a Denial to the next Planning Commission meeting, because the recommendation on this agenda item is for a Resolution for an Approval. City Attorney Thuyen stated if the Planning Commission is going to move for a motion that is different from staffs recommendation, it would be to make a motion to Deny and direct staff to bring back a resolution for Denial at the next Planning Commission meeting. He added the discussion reflects that the Planning Commission would not be able to make a finding under: Finding A) of the resolution which addresses the category of whether or not the approval of the application will not be incompatible or injurious to other properties or land uses in the vicinity or create conditions that are materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare of that category finding. Commissioner Eng stated her views and comments for this application has not changed since the last Planning Commission meeting held on Monday, May 15, 2017: She added she does agree with Vice -Chair Deng's and Commissioner Tang that this is a school, but it is not the appropriate fit for center. Commissioner Tang asked if the motion would be to Deny. City Attorney Thuyen replied yes, the motion would be to move for Denial of this application and to direct staff to bring back a Resolution for Denial at the next Planning Commission meeting. Associate Planner Hanh requested clarification of finding "A 7 City Attorney Thuyen stated for this application the category finding is: "The Planning Commission cannot make the finding that it is not incompatible, not injurious to other properties, it will not create conditions or materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare". He added the reasons are based on the comments that had been addressed in the last Planning Commission meeting minutes and with it being a use that is not or might not be appropriate with this particular shopping center. He stated it is not a enumerated use in the zoning code and they cannot make these findings because of the potential impacts they see based on community character and the community values. He stated those are his reasons for the findings that have been made and recommended the Planning Commission may add their thoughts to get a more complete set of findings. Planning Commissioner Tang agreed to the findings. Associate Planner Hanh stated for clarification, it is because this use will have a negative impact on the community character and values. City Attorney Thuyen stated he would say it is incompatible. Commissioner Herrera stated the school is great, but the location is not, and recommended a different location. City Planner Valenzuela stated the Planning Commission family shopping center and the uses established within proposed use. has expressed that it is incompatible because this is a the shopping center would not be compatible with the Commissioner Tang replied that is correct and asked if the Planning Commissioners also agree or have any other comments. Planning Commissioner Eng stated she agrees, but her concern broadens to the general welfare, as the applicant has indicated there is a lot of desire to want to gamble. She added, as she shared in the last Planning Commission, it leads to a lot of conditions; effects relationships, families, and health. She stated after the last meeting she had spoken with some individuals that had attended a dealer school and they are usually promoted as a get quick title vocational school when in essence it is not. She stated when you are dealing with cards there is a tendency to want to try this, try your luck, and this is something that is not good for the community. She added she agrees this is not an appropriate location considering this is a family orientated shopping center. She stated she also understands this is how the applicant may want something like this because this is how you draw people in for the publicity and promotions. She stated that these schools are not inexpensive, they are an investment, and hopefully students go on and make a living. She expressed concern and commented programs need to be in place to discourage it. Chair Lopez asked how this should be motioned. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the City Attorney will have to assist because for the general welfare there is specific language that is related to that, other than just an opinion. City Attorney Thuyen stated that based on the previous minutes the issues were addressed. He added the Planning Commission is a representative of the City and they have the discretion to make the findings or whether or not there are. He stated based on this application and with the conditions of approval it is consistent and that they are able to. make this finding. He added based on the Planning Commission's comments they cannot and to go ahead and articulate the issues were that having a gambling school at this location is not appropriate. He stated having a school like this especially with having the conditions of approval which based on the previous minutes where there was some discussion of whether they can have tinted windows or not to limit the view inside, discourages the original condition that would allow Code Enforcement to ensure the conditions of approval are met. He stated that this inability to also articulate and address the concern that Commissioner Deng had articulated would also be reflective on how this project would not be consistent with the community character and is not something that could be said is materially detrimental to public health, safety, and general welfare. He stated that is the basis of the Planning Commission's finding. Commissioner Eng stated she disagrees with staff and does not believe she can support a finding of meeting that this application is not detrimental to the public health in general welfare. Commissioner Tang stated that when it gets to the issue of general welfare it gets into testy waters, and asked if they can agree to that this is incompatible, and not appropriate with the community character, especially for this plaza, or, shopping center. Community Development Director Ramirez stated if that is the Planning Commission wishes, then they can go that route. Commissioner Tang asked the City Attorney if that is sufficient. City Attorney Thuyen replied yes, and in this category the terms have been met in this finding, based on the comments of this and the previous Planning Commission meeting, there are sufficient grounds for that. Chair Lopez asked how this motion should be made. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion would be to Deny Resolution 17-10 with findings and Conditional Use Permit 17-02 and direct staff to bring back a Resolution of Denial at the next Planning Commission meeting of July 17, 2017. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Dang to Deny Resolution No. 17.10 with findings and Deny Conditional Use Permit 17.02 and to bring back a Resolution of Denial to the next Planning Commission meeting of July 17, 2017. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, and Tang Noes: Lopez Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the vote is 4 Ayes and 1 Noe to Deny this application and to bring back a Resolution of Denial at the July 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. She stated there is no appeal process at this time because the Resolution has not yet been adopted and this will be heard again on July 17, 2017, Vice -Chair Dang requested that staff help the applicant, in the event that this does not go through, find or establish a location, where it is not a shopping center, and a more suitable location. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 6.5.17 Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve the consent calendar as presented. Vote resulted in: 9 Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: Tang Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Abstain vote. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez gave the time, date, and location of the City of Rosemead, Fourth of July Parade, Carnival, and Firework show. She reminded the Planning Commission to RSVP to Sandy Bernice if they are participating in the Parade, so she may accommodate everyone. She announced the Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday, July 3, 2017 is cancelled and the next Planning Commission meeting will be on Monday, July 17, 2017. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Chair Lopez reported that at 2020 Garret Street - the resident is stacking his empty 5 gallon drums of paint in his driveway and leaves his trash cans in the front yard. Community Development Director Ramirez replied a CRM will be made so that Code Enforcement may investigate the concern. Commissioner Eng stated this is Community Development Director Ramirez's last evening with the Planning Commission and presented a plant on behalf of the Planning Commission and thanked her for all her hard work and making their jobs meaningful.. She thanked her for allowing them to be open about their constructional input. She congratulated Michelle Ramirez on her new title of Public Works Director and thanked her again for all she has done. Community Development Director Ramirez thanked the Planning Commission. She added it is the Planning Division staff that has made her job so easy. She stated she is proud and fortunate to have the best three planners and she is leaving the Planning Commission in excellent capable hands with City Planner Valenzuela who will be the Interim Community Development Director. She thanked her staff for working so hard and making everything so easy for her. Commissioner Eng stated there is a congratulatory dessert for all to enjoy after the meeting. Commissioner Tang stated echoed his colleague's comments and in the four years he has been on this Planning Commission it has been a pleasure to work with Michelle Ramirez and the Traffic Commission will be very lucky to have heron their commission. Community Development Director Ramirez thanked Commissioner Tang. She also thanked Administrative Assistant Lockwood, stated it is a team effort, and this is a great team. Vice -Chair Dang stated he would also like to thank Michelle Ramirez for being a wonderful wing -person right next to him. He stated he often leans over and ask questions and she is a wealth of knowledge, very patient, very diligent, and there have been times he has called her and there have been a few times he has called before 7:00 am and is surprised that she answers her phone so early in the morning. He thanked her for everything, for shepherding the great staff, she is a great mentorship, staff is fantastic, and he would like to give everyone a round of applause. Commissioner Herrera thanked Community Development Director. Chair Lopez also thanked Community Development Director and congratulated City Planner Valenzuela. 10 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission to be held on Monday, July 3, 2017, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers will be cancelled: The next regular Planning Commission will be held on Monday, July 17, 2017, at 7:00 p. in the Council Chambers. ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary Daniel Lopez Chair I