13-C
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to order a de novo public hearing regarding Conditional Use Permit Case No. CU 22-05.
DATE: July 11, 2022
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is an appeal filed by the City Attorney pursuant to Bellflower Municipal Code §
17.112.020. During the Planning Commission meeting on July 5, 2022, the Planning Commission postponed a ministerial action required by Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) § 17.96.050(B)(1) to adopt a resolution of denial memorializing the final decision made by the Planning Commission on June 20, 2022. The decision to postpone this ministerial action was based upon new evidence improperly provided to the Planning Commission outside of a public hearing. Additionally, the Planning Commission direction to the applicant and the City’s Planning Director was outside the scope of its authority.
The City Council should consider setting this matter for a de novo public hearing pursuant to BMC § 17.112.070.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1. Order a de novo public hearing regarding Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) Case No. CU 22-05 pursuant to BMC § 17.112.070(A). A public hearing should be set for August 22, 2022; or
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):
The recommended action, by itself, is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 2100, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) because it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; and constitute an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Accordingly, the proposed action does not constitute a “project” that requires environmental review (see specifically 14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15378(b)(4-5)).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no identifiable fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
-1-
Staff Report – Appeal of Planning Commission decision
July 11, 2022
BACKGROUND
This matter affects an application filed by Alta Los Angeles Hospital, Inc. dba Los Angeles Community Hospital at Bellflower for modification of an existing CUP; the application is identified as CUP Case No. CU 22-05. The application was considered by the Planning Commission during a public hearing held on June 20, 2022. As stated at length within the June 20th staff report, the Planning Commission’s actions are quasi-judicial, i.e., it must apply established law to facts gathered during the public hearing to determine whether the application may be granted. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to direct the Planning Director to return with a formal resolution of denial as required by BMC § 17.96.050(B)(1). That BMC section requires the Planning Commission’s final action regarding a CUP application be memorialized in a final resolution.
On July 5, 2022, the Planning Commission declined to adopt a draft resolution denying CUP Case No. CU 22-05. This decision was based upon evidence submitted into the record outside of the public hearing. Additionally, the Planning Commission directed the applicant and Planning Director to provide a revised CUP application containing new information not previously considered by the Planning Commission in a public hearing or part of the administrative record. Such actions are outside the scope of the Planning Commission’s authority.
The Planning Commission’s powers and duties are generally set forth in BMC § 2.32.050.
As to CUP applications, BMC § 17.96.050(B)(1) requires the Planning Commission to act upon applications that the Planning Director determined to be complete (per BMC §
17.96.030). After acting, the Planning Commission must adopt a formal resolution within 10 days after its decision. Nothing in the BMC allows the Planning Commission to consider evidence that was not part of the final application, the administrative record, or part of the public hearing.
City Council Resolution No. 16-87, adopted December 12, 2016, establishes the City’s Code of Conduct for all elected and appointed public officials. Section 2(B) of Resolution No. 16-87 requires public officials to perform their duties to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Any ex parte contact regarding this matter should have been disclosed before the public hearing occurred – not afterward.
BMC § 17.112.020 authorizes any City officer to appeal “[a]ny order, requirement, decision, determination, interpretation or ruling” made by the Planning Commission.
Separately, but relatedly, the City Council may order any Planning Commission “ruling, decision or determination … denying a conditional use permit … to be set for hearing de novo” pursuant to BMC § 17.112.070(A).
Based upon BMC § 17.112.020, I am making the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision not to adopt a resolution of denial on July 5, 2022 as such action (and the separate direction to the Planning Director regarding noticing a new public hearing) is outside the scope of its authority. To resolve the matter, however, I am also recommending the City Council issue an order to consider the entire matter following a de novo public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff reports dated June 20, 2022 and July 5, 2022
2. Unofficial Planning Commission meeting minutes dated June 20, 2022 and July 5, 2022
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
-7-
-8-
-9-
-10-
-11-
-12-
-13-
-14-
-15-
-16-
-17-
-18-
-19-
-20-
-21-
-22-
-23-
-24-
-25-
-26-
-27-
-28-
-29-
-30-
-31-
-32-
-33-
-34-
-35-
-36-
-37-
-38-
-39-
-40-
-41-
-42-
-43-
-44-
-45-
-46-
-47-
-48-
-49-
-50-
-51-
-52-
-53-
-54-
-55-
-56-
-57-
-58-
-59-
-60-
-61-
-62-
-63-
-64-
-65-
-66-
-67-
-68-
-69-
-70-
-71-
-72-
-73-
-74-
-75-
-76-
-77-
-78-
-79-
-80-
-81-
-82-
-83-
-84-
-85-
-86-
-87-
-88-
-89-
-90-
-91-
-92-
-93-
-94-
-95-
-96-
-97-
-98-
-99-
-100-
-101-
-102-
-103-
-104-
-105-
-106-
-107-
-108-
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BELLFLOWER PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2022, 7:00 P.M.
1 Call to Order
Chairman Drake called the June 20, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
Chairman Drake announced the public participation procedures.
2 Roll Call
The following members of the Planning Commission responded present to roll call:
Chairman Aaron Drake
Vice Chairman Bill Mendes
Commissioner George Franzen
Commissioner Robert Wilson
Commissioner Juan Garza
Staff participants:
Elizabeth Corpuz, Director of Planning and Building Services Rowena Genilo-Concepcion, Planning Manager
Also participating:
Tim Campen, Assistant City Attorney
3 Invocation
Commissioner Juan Garza led the Invocation.
4 Pledge of Allegiance
Vice Chairman Mendes led the Pledge of Allegiance.
-109-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 5 June 20, 2022 Page 2 of 6
5 Public Comment
None.
6A Approval of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes held April 18, 2022.
________________________________________________________________
It was moved by Commissioner Franzen, seconded by Commissioner Garza, and carried by the following roll call vote, to approve the April 18, 2022 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
AYES: Commissioner Franzen, Chairman Drake, Commissioner Wilson, Commissioner Garza
ABSTAIN: Vice Chairman Mendes
6B Approval of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes held May 2, 2022.
________________________________________________________________
It was moved by Commissioner Garza, seconded by Vice Chairman Mendes, and carried by the following roll call vote, to approve the May 2, 2022 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended - to clarify that Mr. Ramos responded to Commissioner Wilson’s question.
AYES: Commissioner Franzen, Chairman Drake, Commissioner Wilson, Commissioner Garza, and Vice Chairman Mendes
NOES: N/A
6C Approval of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes held May 16, 2022.
________________________________________________________________
It was moved by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Vice Chairman Mendes and carried by the following roll call vote, to approve the May 16, 2022 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
AYES: Commissioner Franzen, Chairman Drake, Commissioner Wilson, and Vice Chairman Mendes
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Garza
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 7 -110-
June 20, 2022 Page 3 of 6
7 Consideration and possible action to conduct a public hearing to consider an application from Hector Hernandez (Representing Alta Los Angeles Hospital, Inc. dba Los Angeles Community Hospital at Bellflower) for a Conditional Use Permit (Case No. CU 22-05) to modify conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit Case No. CU 16-02 for a behavioral health hospital within the M-1 (Light Industrial) District and the C-G (General Commercial) Zone located at 9542 Artesia Boulevard. _____
Commissioner Wilson recused himself from the meeting.
Senior Planner Genilo-Concepcion provided a PowerPoint presentation of the staff report highlighting 1) the history of the site, 2) the background, and 3) the proposed request.
The Commission asked for clarity regarding the 2015 and 2016 CUP’s along with the deadlines for the conditions of approval.
Staff advised the Commission that 1) the 2015 CUP was to establish the hospital facility, 2) increasing to the 92-bed capacity was part of the 2016 CUP approval, 3) increasing the block wall to 8ft was a condition of the 2016 CUP approval, and 4) that the various conditions were set to lapse at the end of 2018.
Without objection, it was moved by Commissioner Garza, seconded by Vice Chairman Mendes, to open the Public Hearing.
Seena Samimi / Representative of the hospital informed the Commission that they were requesting to modify the condition of approval for the block wall, leaving it at 6ft because the hospital's current operations do not have an emergency department, no acute care, and less siren noise than the prior hospital operator.
Additionally, an 8ft block wall would require the hospital to demolish the existing wall so they can add a new foundation and support for an 8-foot wall, which would cost 1.6 million. The second big change that they are asking for is the modification of the facade improvements. Seena Samini stated that the hospital is still doing improvements to the facade, and there's still hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent by the hospital, but it's a streamline of the original design because it’s going to save a lot of money, and the improvements that are being proposed in the new proposal do not require OSHPD approval whereas the original design does.
That was going to cost 2.5 million dollars and the hospital still plans to spend about 500,000 on the upgrades. Seena Samini advised the Commission that the real reason why they are asking for these modifications is the financial considerations.
That the overall cost projection for these projects is $4.1 million combined. And those are updated figures. These are updated numbers from when they first applied in 2018-2019. Seena Samini also responded to Commissioner Garza’s question regarding reaching out to the City before the 2018 expiration date. Mr.
Samini stated that he reached out to staff via email prior to the expiration date, but whether a meeting happened prior to the expiration date, he couldn’t be certain.
Seena Samini also commented on additional conditions of approval that were previously recommended by the Planning Commission to address improvements to the existing site conditions. The hospital wanted to raise issue with three the of items on the list of 11.
-111-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 7 June 20, 2022 Page 4 of 6
First, was the wheel stops. The hospital provided a power point presentation which showed that there are already wheel stops along the exterior of the parking lot and in the interior parking lot but not the middle row right because they felt that would limit the maneuverability and use of the parking lot. They are requesting that this condition be modified so that it specifies wheel stops wherever you are in front of a wall. Second, is with respect to the lighting in the parking lot. Seena Samini informed the Commission that this parking lot is rarely used even with the expansion of the hospital from 30-90 beds, it’s not expected that it’s going to get used very much let alone at night. Lastly, is about the emergency back up generator. The Commission asked for a 12 ft wall surrounding the emergency back up generator. Mr. Samini stated that the backup generator is going to have to go through an upgrade process which has to go through OSHPD and it’s gonna be a whole new generator in a few years. They are requesting that if there is going to be a condition of approval about the emergency backup generator that it be postponed to the point where the hospital gets its new generator and not applicable to this generator which is going to be replaced soon.
Commissioner Garza asked if there were any current conditions that would restrict them from converting the facility to a traditional hospital-emergency use in the future. In addition, he questioned whether they did their due diligence on the property in terms of what the requirements would be with OSHPD and whether they performed a seismic study of the facility itself.
Seena Samimi / Representative of the hospital stated that the CUP that was approved in 2016 changed the hospital from a medical to 100% behavioral so, the hospital does not have the right to do anything but behavioral at the site. Farrell Johnson / Vice President responded to Commissioner Garza’s question’s by stating that yes, he was part of the initial evaluation with OSHPD when the organization first purchased the facility. That they had OSHPD out to the site to have a thorough review of the facility, and that they we were aware of the seismic when they first purchased but by converting to be a health, seismic does not require it. OSHPD does not require seismic inaudible.
Commissioner Garza questioned if there was a reason why they were not operating at the 92 beds that they were approved for in 2016 and if they ever met that 92-bed operation. He also wanted to confirm that they were aware that certain modifications would require OSHPD clearance which would take time and was unsure why they would agree to conditions of approval if they are stating now that OSHPD is the reason the conditions did not get fulfilled.
Farrell Johnson / Vice President confirmed that they did receive OSHPD approval for 92, however, they have not started that project at this point. He also stated that the OSHPD approval process took approximately 2 ½ years. From the design to the final approval. Mr. Johnson confirmed that he was aware that specific conditions would require OSHPD approval and that his organization still agreed to the conditions of approval.
-112-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 7 June 20, 2022 Page 5 of 6
Don Kreitz / CEO of California Hospitals interjected stating that there were a lot of moving targets back in 2016-2017. That they were going after the CUP when they also went after OSHPD to do the design of OSHPD. That they kept on going back and forth with OSHPD trying to decide if they should lock down the facility, make it LPS, or make it voluntary. It took maybe a year to decide which direction we wanted to go with, then they started pricing it out in 2017 - 2018.
Commissioner Garza asked for clarification as he heard the applicant say that when they priced out the improvements it was 2 years after they got the approval?
We had to get an extension because that’s when we were facing the Covid crisis, but it was after we got final OSHPD approval, Farrell Johnson and Don Kreitz clarified.
Chairman Drake asked if there was existing lighting in the parking lot that was outlined in the conditions of approval where the Planning Commission recommended lighting.
Michael / Project Manager – Yes, there are two light scanners that are not on our property, but they look like City lights that are shining into our parking lot.
Without objection, it was moved by Chairman Garza, seconded by Vice Chairman Mendes to close the Public Hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Garza, seconded by Commissioner Franzen, and carried by the following role call vote, requesting that staff draft a Resolution denying Conditional Use Permit Case No. CU 22-05 to modify conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit CU 16-02 for a behavioral health hospital within the M-1 (Light Industrial) District and the C-G (General Commercial) Zone located at 9542 Artesia Boulevard.
AYES: Vice Chairman Mendes, Commissioner Franzen,
Commissioner Garza, Chairman Drake
Director Corpuz - Our next meeting is a Tuesday, July 5th. So normally we have a meeting the 1st Monday of July but it is a holiday, July 4th so we will bring this back at your Tuesday meeting on July 5th and also for the applicant as well.
Commissioner Garza – So if obviously this has to naturally have a formal resolution so, at that case in point, if the commission reads the Resolution and in fact adopts it, I would like to ask for a Code Enforcement staff to follow up regarding their continued operation out of compliance with their conditions of approval. And two, if needed for the City Attorney and City Prosecutor to follow up on that as well.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson rejoined the meeting.
-113-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 8 June 20, 2022 Page 6 of 6
8 Resolutions for Consideration
None.
9 Item of Consideration
None.
10 Consent Calendar
None.
11 Director’s Report on Upcoming Agenda Items and Schedule
Director Corpuz briefly reviewed the Upcoming Agenda Items and Schedule.
12 Commission Comments/Reports
The Commission made the following comments and reports and asked questions relative to: 1) the auto center located at 9240-50 Artesia, 2) 10117 Rosecrans, 3) Johnny Rebs signage, 4) the truck storage at Artesia and Virginia, 5) the radiator business at 16658 Woodruff Ave., and 6) the Dart Lounge.
13 Adjournment
Without objection, Chairman Drake adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Bellflower Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 5, 2022.
________________________
Aaron Drake, Chairman
Attest:
Elizabeth Corpuz, Secretary
Approved: July 18, 2022
-114-
DRAFT VERBATIM MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BELLFLOWER PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JULY 5, 2022, 7:00 P.M.
1 Call to Order
Chairman Drake called the July 5, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
Chairman Drake announced the public participation procedures.
2 Roll Call
The following members of the Planning Commission responded present to roll call:
Chairman Aaron Drake
Vice Chairman Bill Mendes
Commissioner George Franzen
Commissioner Robert Wilson
Commissioner Juan Garza
Staff participants
Rowena Genilo-Concepcion, Planning Manager
Jason Clarke, Senior Planner
Also participating:
Joaquin Vazquez, Deputy City Attorney
3 Invocation
Commissioner Juan Garza led the Invocation.
4 Pledge of Allegiance
Commissioner Franzen led the Pledge of Allegiance.
-115-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 5 July 5, 2022 Page 2 of 11
5 Public Comment
None.
6 Approval of Minutes
________________________________________________________________
None.
7 Public Hearing
________________________________________________________________
None.
8 Resolutions for Consideration
Consideration and possible action to adopt Resolution No. PC 22-10 - A Resolution denying Conditional Use Permit (Case No. CU 22-05) to modify conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit Case No. CU 16-02 for a behavioral health hospital within the M-1 (Light Industrial) District and the C- G (General Commercial) Zone located at 9542 Artesia Boulevard; Applicant:
Hector Hernandez (Representing Alta Los Angeles Hospital, Inc. DBA Los Angeles Community Hospital at Bellflower) (Continued from June 20, 2022)
Chairman Drake - Now we're at the resolution for consideration. This is the agenda item to consider adoption of resolution number PC 22-10 related to Conditional Use Permit Case Number CU 22-05, which was consider at the June 20, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. And Jason oh, at this time, go ahead, Mr. Wilson.
Commissioner Wilson - I need to excuse myself.
Chairman Drake - Thank you, sir. Let's let the record show that Mr. Wilson was recusing himself for items number eight. The CPU consideration for adoption resolution number PC 22-10.
Senior Planner Clarke - Evening, Mr. Chair, members of the public, staff will not be showing a presentation for tonight. As the Chairman said, the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to present a Resolution that was approved from the June 20, 2022 Planning Commission meeting which the Planning Commission Chair described. Before the Commission decides on the Resolution staff wanted to make the Commission aware that the applicants attorney submitted a formal written request today to continue this matter. I'll just read it in record, which Commissioners also have a copy in front of them.
Chairman Drake – I appreciate it.
-116-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 8 July 5, 2022 Page 3 of 11
Senior Planner Clarke - your Jason I thank you for forwarding the agenda and staff report. The hospital hereby formally requests a continuance of the July 5, 2022 Planning Commission the Planning Commission hearing Agenda Item number eight which is tonight. The reason for the proposed continuance is that in line with the comments from the commissioner at the most recent Planning Commission hearing and hospital would like to revisit its proposal for CUP modification. More specifically, the hospital needs time to prepare and price out modified facade plans and would also like additional time to engage in further discussion with city staff, and city officials to determine whether changes should be made to the design proposal and cup modification requests. And then the rest of it is talking about additional information for tonight's meeting. So, with that said, the applicant’s attorney and as well as the applicant, we're present tonight the commission should give the applicant an opportunity to present their request. With that said, that concludes staff’s presentation.
Chairman Drake - Thank you, sir.
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – If I may Mr. Chair?
Chairman Drake - Go ahead, sir.
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – The public hearing was closed after it was conducted at the last meeting. And we still are obligated to provide as a public comment. So, we're not reopening the public hearing. This will be a Brown Act flavored public comment with the three-minute limit for members of the public, including the applicant’s team that may want to Pinterest account the Commissioner.
Chairman Drake - Thank you, sir. Okay. Can we do that at this time? Okay. If the applicant attorney wants to come forward and state your name for the record.
Seena Samimi / Representative of Hospital - Good evening, Commissioners, thank you so much for…Good evening, Commissioners. Good evening. Yes, my name is CNS. And maybe you remember us last time, I do appreciate all the comments that we received. And honestly, the hospital after the last Planning Commission hearing, they go back to the drawing board, had some meetings, had some discussions and came back and wanted to make sure that we are in a position to present a proposal that would be palatable for the Planning Commission. And so that's the real reason for the extension request that you want to go back, especially as to the facade issue, that did seem to be the one issue that was, you know, most strikingly, the subject of most of the comments that were received. And the only other thing that I want to point out, I'll keep my comments brief is just that to the extent that the Planning Commission does not want to extend this and then provide the hospital additional time just reminding the Planning Commission that there is an additional option, you know, you have unlimited options really, but there is an additional option at your disposal that you could perhaps tell staff to come back with a resolution that accepts certain parts of the -117-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 8 July 5, 2022 Page 4 of 11
proposal that were acceptable to the Planning Commission and you know, rejecting the others I just wanted to put that out there without going into the specifics, we did have a long presentation with a lot of different elements. But really, we do want to have the extension request so that we can put something before you that would be more acceptable. So that closes my comments. Thank you very much.
Chairman Drake - Appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Do we have time to allow his attorney or he doesn't need to? If you want to make a statement?
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – Anyone else can.
Chairman Drake - All right. We heard from Council I mean commission. We're gonna go at this time for consideration possible action to adopt it.
Senior Planner Clarke – Based on the information presented today, the PC has the following options, adopted proposed resolution, and I leave it to the applicant to either appealed the PC decision or start from square one by filing a new application after doing this proposed due diligence or take no action on the resolution and direct staff and our staff to be noticed the either bring back the item as a new public hearing to consider modifications to the applicants proposal that the applicant is requesting. Just wanted to put that on the record.
Chairman Drake - Okay, gentlemen, here we are. Go ahead, sir.
Commissioner Garza - Thank you for the opportunity. The the options for decision for our decision tonight that are they on here. They're not on here, right. The three options?
Senior Planner Clarke – Uh, no.
Commissioner Garza - Okay, great. I just wanted to make sure I didn’t miss something. Thank you for that. So, chair and fellow Commissioners I, I actually I got a, I was reached out to you by councilmember Sanchez, regarding this this project. And so, he actually, he arranged for a meeting, he asked me if I was open to meeting with the applicant. So just full disclosure. That did happen. And so, I accepted the invitation to meet with the applicant. So, we met I believe it was last week, last week. And so, I was able to kind of get more, a more amplified background in terms of the project and the change of ownership. And at no point in time that I sense that the applicant was trying to get out of their commitments, I think, after the last meeting per counsels, comments, you know, I think the sense I got was that the message that this Commission sent was clear. Right, but I think it also led the applicant to reassess their project. And so, there was quite a bit of ideas that were shared. And I think the message that was sent by counsel that Jason read off the statement really captures it really nicely in terms of you know, they first of all, the, one of the comments that I really learned a lot about was that -118-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 8 July 5, 2022 Page 5 of 11
the original facade that was proposed back in, when was it 2015, which is something that they basically inherited, that they thought that that design by itself was not very good. Since then, they obviously they proposed an alternative. And the alternative was something that now they recognize is not really some, it's subpar. And so, they really saw they thought, you know, what would you meaning us, the city gave them an opportunity to reimagine this, right that like to make it better than even the original facade, which is what the conditions were kind of based off of. And so, I really felt that in the discussion that we had, that there was a lot of good faith. I obviously, I can only speak for myself, I can speak for the commission. But I definitely express that we wouldn't, I wouldn't want to have this an ongoing process forever. Again, it's already taking this long to kind of get to this point, with no results yet. But I definitely sense that there was a sincerity of trying to be have a good partnership with the city. And so, I just felt the need to express that to my fellow Commissioners so that you're fully aware, first of all, that I had that meeting. And second, my take in terms of what the meeting was about, there were some elements that they're proposing. And again, it was something they proposed, it wasn't something that I or councilmember Sanchez requested. There's some elements that I think that if we as a commission decide to move forward, frankly, are outside of our scope of our jurisdiction as a commission, I think it's something that would be appropriate for the council. And the city's general counsel to kind of deliberate with the applicant in terms of how to resolve those issues. For example, one element of was with the potential of actually having an urgent care center to be opened within the footprint, right, which is something that were me, looking at a macro level, something we're missing from that area. And then the second was a potential frankly, there's a potential that there's land within their ownership. That is, I want to say excess, but it's probably a land that wouldn't be utilized under their current operational model. And so, there was a discussion of potentially that land, maybe being converted into a local park. And as you may know, our city is actually really Park deficient. It's been acknowledged by the county by every single expert that deals with parks that bellflower as a whole needs parks, needs park space. And so again, those are elements that I know for me, they're outside of my scope, with in terms of my role in this commission. So, I think there's an opportunity here of having ancillary benefits for our community in our city. Potentially converting this relationship from something that has not been good so far to something that's really good partnership, and potentially translating it into a project and facade that could be even more impressive than what we originally envisioned. And so, I'm seeing it as opportunity, obviously, I would want the applicant to themselves commit to these things right and formally, but it just wanted to share with you in terms of the discussions that I had full disclosure. And so, with that, I definitely am open to reconsidering the motion that I made, had the last meeting. But obviously, I’m just one person. And I'm definitely here to be a team player. So, I'm definitely open in what asked to hear from my colleagues, what they feel about what I just presented.
Chairman Drake - Thank you, sir. Appreciate it, and appreciate your honesty and openness and sharing that information that I didn't know either. So, and I liked some of the words you use in your explanation, you know, reimagining even better -119-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 8 July 5, 2022 Page 6 of 11
than what we thought before partnership being and got a better understanding of things. Maybe it wasn't beyond the scope, number one, number two, and three that maybe they weren't responsible for when they came into this place. So, appreciate you appreciate the knowledge and wisdom and information. And I'll go next to somebody making comments.
Vice Chairman Mendes – Just one comment. You referenced you may do an emergency room. In the original report that we got that that was taken off of the table at that time. And so, they they were stipulating that because of the emergency room to take away certain items on the project. And so now, we're going to go back to the table and or the Planning Department is going to go back to the to the table and read discuss the issues with the hospital?
Commissioner Garza - That's a that's a really good question. And a really good point of distinction. And again, counsel, if I get this wrong, let me know and as well as the applicant as well, please. So, I think the the element, would it be emergency?
Vice Chairman Mendes - Yeah.
Commissioner Garza - Or trauma, it wouldn't be more urgent care, urgent care Trauma Center?
Vice Chairman Mendes – Yes.
Commissioner Garza - So my understanding is that the level of certification for something like that is not as strenuous as, as as a trauma or emergency center.
So that's my understanding. I could be wrong in chair, I think the the applicant is asking me to make comments.
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – I'm going to jump in. This is looking a lot like a public hearing. The posture here is what did you all decide last time? Based on that decision? Can the findings be made to support the decision that was made at the last meeting? That's sort of like the fundamental thrust of why we're here. The current ball is that we're considering is due to the request for a continuance but you continue live hearings. So, the hearing is closed. We do have an offer from counsel for the applicant, saying, gee, will you direct your staff to reconsider different elements that may be palatable, but we don't…that's one that's not on the on the agenda. But I think we have enough room to maneuver where that feasible.
We're pushing it. I’m going to be honest. Yeah. There is an avenue where you formalize the action that you took, which seems to be what the practices and what's provided for in the code here.
Commissioner Garza - Okay.
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – There's a 10-day appeal process, the applicant can make their pitch to the council. If the council is persuaded, you can say, hey, -120-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 8 July 5, 2022 Page 7 of 11
go take this back to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission. We want you to look at this modification, this other tweak, here are things we want you to consider and reevaluate Planning Commission as part of that.
Chairman Drake - The question for me is, should we discontinue on an X for motion to adopt the resolution as presented?
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – So at any time someone can make that someone can make that motion, if it if it's successful, then that would open up the avenue for for and appeal within the 10 days.
Chairman Drake – Right. Because I don't want to make it or push it any further than it’s going now for it to make it look like a public hearing that's going to get through that.
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez - You can definitely do that. Or you can entertain an alternative motion. Where, which is where we're sort of getting into this gray area of what what leeway do you all have at this point, given the request?
Commissioner Garza - So the question I have is, is I'm fully prepared to undo my original motion. But I need your help in guiding me. So that we're…
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – Well if it's a motion for consideration, you have to have been in the minority, and it has to have been at the same reading. So okay, Robert's Rules perspective, that wouldn't work. So, I'm assuming you you move to deny.
Commissioner Garza - Correct.
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – So someone, did anyone vote in favor to approve? Because if not..
Commissioner Garza - The motion was unanimous to deny.
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – Okay, then a motion for reconsideration would not work.
Commissioner Garza - So if if I make a motion to to deny tonight's motion, or tonight's resolution, right, basically to to eliminate this resolution. I would just need your help in terms of like how to award it so that it opens up an avenue for continued discussions between the applicant and the city?
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – Well, I think that would get very, very messy if we do
Commissioner Garza - Yeah.
-121-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 8 July 5, 2022 Page 8 of 11
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – So I think so one thing could be to direct staff to we notice, reopen the public hearing.
Commissioner Garza - Okay. I will take no action on the resolution tonight?
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – Right.
Commissioner Garza - And just direct staff to reopen the public hearing.
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – Right, where we can have this discussion and give them direction, I think on on what you may want to see. And this is assuming you don't want to stick to the denial, which is teed up with the findings that staff has provoked supposed to provide based on your direction for the last time.
Commissioner Garza - Correct. And I think it's certainly fine that that be brought up again, like it could be still an option there. I don't have an issue with that.
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – So I think I think, I think essentially at three options, one, adopt the results presented by staff to move to approve the resolution with certain modifications. But, again, since this isn't a forum for a public hearing, it's hard to decipher what modifications would be necessary. Three would be have staff re notice. So, the public knows what's going on and delivers, we noticed the public hearing, reopen the public hearing. So, there's an opportunity for for additional dialogue to be presented on what the variables may be on on finding a resolution on what could work, because this point is getting too close there.
Commissioner Garza - Thank you, I appreciate the guidance, if that's what you're looking for. So, chair. With that, if I may, then I'd like to actually be soft on my interaction potential here. I'd like to make a motion to re notice a public hearing for our next regular regular meeting. So that we, these new facts can be brought for consideration before the public, give the public an opportunity to also not only hear it, but give their comments. And for this commission to be able to decide whether if the motion for denial or an alternate Avenue would be appropriate and best.
Chairman Drake - I'm not sure I can remember.
Planning Manager Genilo-Concepcion - Chairman, just to clarify, we cannot have it on the following Planning Commission meeting because that notification requirement we have to go to the newspaper. So, we'd have to work with that schedule.
Commissioner Garza - Thank you for that clarification. At the next meeting that's feasible, in compliance with noticing requirements.
Chairman Drake - Can you repeat? Did you catch it all?
-122-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 8 July 5, 2022 Page 9 of 11
Commissioner Garza – I think we got the gist of it, but just to get a motion to to re notice a public hearing so that new facts can be brought before the public and for this commission to consider. Is that appropriate, counsel?
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez –Yes. Are there any questions on the motion that's being presented?
Commission - None from me.
Chairman Drake - And Mr. Franzen? None from me. I'm confused. But so I've just want to see this project. Somehow, I just want to see it move forward and be positive for everyone. So that can be accomplished by re noticing of a new public hearing, bring the community out. But I want to see a plan that and have realistic timelines to get to this point. I don't want to I don't want to show up at the next meeting, and have a notice on the Friday before the meeting, asking for this. And then I'm sure within an organization and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt within our organization, it took some time to get all get to the point of what are we want to do and probably want to address it. So, I'm accepting that as how why we got to this point. But what I want to see is that the city and the applicant work together with realistic timelines so that when we do have this week, you know what, we can move forward, and we can have a realistic timeline. And we're not back to the situation, where were dealing with matters from six years ago. I mean, I'm not gonna - none of us are gonna be around in 2028.
Chairman Drake - I think that’s going to be addressed with the new motion that’s gonna be presented.
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – Sure. And just to clarify, it seems like we have, we're down to two options at this point. One would be stick with the denial. If the applicant appeals, they can make their pitch to the council. And this is basically you had to get out to the council saying, hey, if they want to have any additional consideration, let's, let's, that's the council's job. Good. We've said our piece we've made our decision to deny, we're going to prove the resolution and deny. So that's one avenue, the second, which has been moved on is to have a new public hearing to reconsider some additional evidence and variables that may be in play with the decision and allow you all to revisit it at the next meeting that it could be noticed that and that's the motion.
Commissioner Garza – So that is a motion. But you know, taking Commissioner Franzen’s comments to heart as well, in terms of him wanting to see something a little more concrete is would it be appropriate counsel then and staff for instead of it being a motion for the public hearing at the next meeting, you know, complying with noise requirements that this be done at that time in the future when they do have a viable plan, like Commissioner Franzen stated something a little more tangible before this commission? Does that make sense?
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – Right. So, I think you're saying give them additional time to do whatever due diligence they need? Yeah. What I am unsure -123-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 8 July 5, 2022 Page 10 of 11
about are any any timeframes or deadlines we might be dealing with? Are there existing entitlements in play?
Planning Manager Genilo-Concepcion - There is an existing CUP that they have not met the conditions.
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – And and is that still is that has that still extended? And that wouldn't be a concern, given the additional times requested?
Planning Manager Genilo-Concepcion – At one point it was. It was a concern that was brought up last meeting.
Deputy City Attorney Vazquez – I would recommend really sticking with as soon as feasible, and then that sort of allows staff to discuss with the applicant to see what might be workable and if there is additional time beyond the meeting after the next that could be accounted for.
Commissioner Garza – Okay, that makes sense considering the enforcement and and everything. I mean, I think if we were to do it at the next plausible date, I think it would give all sides time not only our legal and code enforcement in terms of code violations, right? That there's still things at play here. It'll be Have you got some time but got Okay, so I will stick to my original motion.
Chairman Drake - Okay, we have a motion, I can’t repeat it all if you can touch on the highlights of it to uh…
Planning Manager Genilo-Concepcion – Commissioner Garza’s motion is to re notice the Public Hearing as soon as feasible.
Deputy City Attorney / Joaquin Vazquez - And if I can just flush that out and just to make sure we’re all on the same page. Re notice the Public Hearing and then conduct a new Public Hearing to consider additional proposals from the applicant.
Commissioners - Yes.
Chairman Drake -Ok. We have a motion, does anyone want to throw in for a second?
Franzen – Second
We have a motion and a second. Can we call the roll?
It was moved by Commissioner Garza, seconded by Commissioner Franzen, and carried by the following roll call vote, to re-notice the Public Hearing and conduct a new Public Hearing and consider additional proposals from the applicant regarding Conditional Use Permit Case No. CU 22-05 to modify conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit CU 16-02 for a behavioral health hospital within
-124-
Bellflower Planning Commission Minutes Item 9 July 5, 2022 Page 11 of 11
the M-1 (Light Industrial) District and the C-G (General Commercial) Zone located at 9542 Artesia Boulevard.
AYES: Commissioner Franzen, Commissioner Garza, Vice Chairman Mendes, Chairman Drake
NOES:
9 Item of Consideration
None.
10 Consent Calendar
None.
11 Director’s Report on Upcoming Agenda Items and Schedule
Director Corpuz briefly reviewed the Upcoming Agenda Items and Schedule.
12 Commission Comments/Reports
13 Adjournment
Without objection, Chairman Drake adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Bellflower Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July 18, 2022.
________________________
Aaron Drake, Chairman
Attest:
Elizabeth Corpuz, Secretary
Approved: July 5, 2022
-125-