HomeMy Public PortalAboutA 1989-04-11 PLANNING COMMISSION � � ����
,
� .
.�
' A G E N D A
LYNWOOD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
;� � .
. REGULAR MEETING - 7:30 P.M. ;
City Hall Council Chambers � � � � �'� �, ;�
� 11330 Bullis Road, Lynwood, CA. ������,�� �
r73� �±�r�r,s �.�-;:�eE !I
��� �'� ����
AFA
� April 11, 1989 g 6
-. ��
� �� 4 " p��
,
Donald A. Dove
���'�- �
Chairperson
Lena Cole-Dennis Alberto Montoya Penalber
Commissioner Vice Chairperson
John K. Haynes Roy Pryor
Commissioner Commissioner
_ Lucille Kanka David J. Willis, Jr.
Commissioner Commissioner
STAFF•
Vicente L. Mas, Director Art Barfield
Community Development Department Planning Associate
Aubrey D. Fenderson Andrew B-Pessima
' Planning Manager Planning Technician
C O M M I S S I O N C O U N S E L:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - —
Henry S. Barbosa Douglas D. Barnes
City Attorney Deputy City Attorney
DISK 45:AGENCOVR
,:� "
April 11, 1989
OPENING CEREMONIES
A. Call meeting to order.
B. Flag Salute.
C. Roll Call of Commissioners.
D. Certification of Agenda posting.
E. Approval of Minutes of March 14, 1989 Planning Commission meeting
CONTINUED PUBLZC HEARING:
1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Case No. 1
City Wide
Comments•
The staff is proposing to amend Chapter 25, the official
Zoning Ordinance with respect to parking standards city
wide.
Recommended Action:
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration, the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2259.
A. The project is exempt from the provisions of the State
CEQA Guidelines, as amended by Section 15061 b(3).
B. Recommend that the City Council approve the findings in
Resolution No. 2259, waive the reading and introduce the
proposed ordinance.
2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Case No. 2 j
City Wide
Comments•
The Staff is proposing to Amend Chapter 25, the official
Zoning Ordinance with respect to property maintenance
standards city wide.
I
Recommended Action: I
• Staff respectfully requests, that, after consideration, the
Planning Commission continue 2oning Ordinance Amendment Case
No. 2 to the next regular meeting of the Planninq Commission
on May 9, 1989.
I
I
I
DISK 7:AGENDA I
I
�
1 i
I
I
r�
�
3. Modification to Conditional Use Permit - Case No. 85075 (CUP 1)
11333 Wright Rd., Lynwood, (Jose L. Lopez)
Comments �
The applicant is requesting a modification of Conditional Use
• Permit Case No. 85075 in order to construct one (1) two
bedroom apartment unit at the rear of an existing triplex, in
the R-3 zone.
Recommended Action
Staff respectfully requests, that after consideration, the
Planning Commission remove this item from the Agenda.
4. Conditional Use Permit - Case No. 5
12430 Harris Ave., Lynwood (Sergio Lopez)
Comment
The applicant is proposing to develop four (4) apartment
units with three (3) attached and one (1) detached two (2)
car garages in the R-2 zone.
Recommended Action:
Staff respectfully requests, that after consideration, the
Planning Commission remove the item from the Agenda. �
5. Variance Case No. 1
10992 Pine Avenue (Lawrence R. and Brenda J. Bible)
Comment
The applicant are requesting a Variance for a five (5') foot
high wrought iron fence along the front yard setback of their
property in the R-1 zone.
Recommended Action:
Staff respectfully requests, that after consideration, the
Planning Commission concur with staff's recommendation:
A. Finding that a hardship has been established that would
require a Variance for Case No. 1 as determined by
Section 25-26 of the City of Lynwood Zoning Code.
B. Finding that the applicants/property owners will not be
deprived of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same vicinity if the recommendation of
denial is upheld.
6. Variance Case No. 2
10971 San Vicente Avenue (Ceneyda Reyes)
�
Comment
The applicant is requesting a Variance in order to provide
only three (3) attached one-car garages to serve three
residential units in the R-3 zone.
�
DISK 7:AGENDA I
I
2
n
, Recommended Action
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration, the
Planning Commission adopt.Resolution No. 2267:
Staff respectfully requests, that, after consideration the
Planning Commission continue Variance Case No'. 2 to the next
regularly shceduled meeting of May 9, 1989.
NEW PUBLZC HEARINGS:
7. Zone Change - Case No. 1
11300 Spruce Street (Lynwood Unified School District)
Comment
The applicant is requesting a Zone Change from R-2 (Two-
Family Residential) zone to a CF (Community Facilities) zone
in order to be consistent with tthe General Plan designation
of Public Land Uses.
Recommended Action
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration, the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2273:
A. Finding that the Zone Change will not have a significant
effect on the environment and certify the Negative
Declaration as adequate. Recommend same to City Council.
B. Recommend that the City Council adopt the findings in
Resolution No. 2273 waive the reading and introduce the
proposed Ordinance Amendment.
8. Conditional Use Permit Case No. 2
11300 Spruce Street (Lynwood Unified School District)
Comment
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to
construct a two-story Administrative Office Building in the
R-2 Zone.
Recommended Action
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration, the
Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2 to
the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 9, 1989.
9. Conditional Use Permit Case No. 10 I
10978 Duncan Avenue (Elvin Sequeira) '�
Comment �
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional Use
Permit to develop a one story three (3) bedroom single family �
house in the R-2 (Two-Family Residential) zone. i
Recommended Action �
I
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration, the I
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2260: I
A. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions I
of the CEQA Guidelines as amended by Section 15061 b(3). �
I
I
DISK 7:AGENDA I
i
I
3
�
�,
�;
B. Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 10, subject to the
stated conditions and require�nents.
REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS �
STAFF COL�II'�IENTS
Status Report on General Plan Update
COMMIS&ION ORALS
PUBLIC ORALS
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the next.regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
May 9, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Hall Chambers, 11330 Bullis
Road, Lynwood, California.
DISK 7:AGENDA
4
� r ZOA 1
I �
� .�.
DATE: ApTil 11, 1989 n r,���, �—;-„� „ �`�
f'� .r-. il.�irl 1�➢\l.
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
C-':� �� I`: ��. -Z. 0 ---=
FROM: Vicente L. Mas, Diiector ,
Community Development Department
. SUBJECT: Zoninq Ordinance Amendment Case No. 1,
Parking Standards, City-Wide
PROPOSAL
The staff is proposing to Amend Chapter 25, the official Zoning
Ordinance with respect to parking standards city wide.
BACKGROUND•
An analysis of traffic and parking patterns in commercial and
industrial zones undergoing new development in Lynwood shows that
there are substantial and siqnificant deficiencies within the
City's Zoning Ordinance, governing, parking, loading design and
layout standards, which preclude maximizing off-street parking
and layout opportunities.
It is the intent of this proposed amendment to deal with
quantitative parking requirements only, as the lack of
sufficient off-street parking in the commercial and industrial
zones is a problem which must be immediately corrected. Loading
design and layout standards will be addressed at a later date,
when greater study has been done.
This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of
March 14, 1989 in order to allow staff additional time to obtain
more information on parking standards from other cities.
FACTS:
Increased on-curb or on-street parking on commercial streets
create more traffic congestion in many commercial and industrial
zones throughout the city, and is primarily due to inadequate
parking provided on existing developed commercial/manufacturing
lots. Staff believes that much of the increased on-street
parking is attributable to inadequate parking standards in the
City of Lynwood Zoning Ordinance.
Staff recommends that the City re-establish quantitative a
parking requirements and eventually parking design and layout
guidelines to remedy the deficiencies in off-street parking. The
establishment of off-street parking in the
commercial/manufacturing zones is necessary to protect the public
health, safety, convenience and public welfare.
The City of Lynwood parking standards have never been totally
revised, and though the ordinance has requirements for specific
land uses, a great deal of the required parking is established
through zoning classifications. For example, if a business owner
is located in the C-2A zone, regardless of the land use, (if the I
use is not specifically addressed by the ordinance) parking
requirements would be l space for each four hundred (400) square i
feet of gross floor area. This is not sufficient as there has I
been a tremendous increase in automobile traffic in Lynwood due
to increased automobile ownership in the last few years.
DISK 7:ZOA1
1 I
City staff reviewed parking standards of ten (10) cities: Bell,
Bellflower, Downey, Torrance, South Gate, Compton, Lawndale,
' Norwalk, Paramount and Commerce (See attached Charts). The
survey deals with requirements for specific land uses,
especially, areas in which staff believes, present parking
problems to the city; ie commercial, office and manufacturing.
The analysis discloses, that the City of Lynwood has one of the
most lenient parking requirements among the surveyed cities. Some
of the areas which staff paid particular attention are
requirements for,government administrative, commercial, office
and industrial land uses.
The proposed Amendment was published in the Lynwood Press on
December 29, 1988, and the staff has not received any comments as
of the date of this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The project is exempt from the provisions of State CEQA
Guidelines as amended by Section 15061 b(3) and is on file in
the Community Development Department.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff respectfully requests, that after consideration, the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2259
A. The project is exempt from the provisions of the State CEQA
Guidelines, as amended by Section 15061 b(3).
B. Recommend that the City Council approve the findings in
Resolution No. 2259, waive the reading and introduce the
proposed ordinance.
DISK 7:ZOA1
I
I
I
2 �
rAHKING SURVEY FOR THE CITY UF LYNWUUU H �Owrwxql'TV� ANAliYS1J
' , COMMERCIAL � � _ '� -��Z � MANOFACTURING
C B t C- 2 � C - 2A - C-3 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 +� � ��-
— {17Y �I
(
I
LYNWOOD 1/300 sq. ft. GFA 7/900 sq. ft. GFA �1/400'�sq. ft. GFA 2 Car garage 2 Car garage 2/ per unit 1/500 sq, ft 1/1000 sq. ft.
I per house per unit one of which GFA but not GFA but not
�should� be � less than .less than one
. covered. one (1) (7) space per
space per employee
employee
I
COMPTON 1 sq. ft. of off s reet parking area, each one (1) 1-} parking spac within a privat garage For each 3 s. ft. GFA of
sq. ft, of GFA and one (1) sq. ft. of off street parking for each dwellin unit, with a min' um of building, 1 . ft. of
area for each thre (3) sq. ft. of ar a of subsequent two spaces. parking.
floors in such gui ance.. i � �
/
--• LAWNDALE 1/250 sq. ft. area or all general ret �il. � 2 Car garage "�.-- At least one (1) standard 1/500 e9• ft. 1/1000 sq. ft.
, _� � per house space (i.e. 9 x 0) with a 25' GFA or 1 per GFA �
turning radius p us one.(1) per employee
� i . � compact space7� :;�5'��(iith 20' of largest
turning radius a least 508 to shift.
. � be covered.
i
, t per vehicle 1/1000 sq. ft:
in conjunction for the first
NORWALK General detail (CO ercial uses) � 2 Car garage per 2 covered spacae er dwelling With use. 20,000 sq. ft.
t/250 sq. t. of GFA i per house but unit. 1/500 eq. ft. and 9/2000 sq.
1 car garage for If more than foUr (4) units, GFA or 1 each �t. and 1 space
interior lots then one (t) spac exclusively 2 employees for each 4,OG0
� � less than 35' in designated for gu st parking. �on maxtmum sq. ft. in
� . width. For each five (5) units, unless shift but not excess of
� otherwise determi ed through more than 7 40,000 sq. ft.
' � precise developme t plan review space for
each 250 sq.
i ft. GFA.
. ... ' . . � .. .
PARKING SURVEY FOR THE CITY ur i.snav.... .� -- •
I
. CONNIIi;R�L � . RESIDENTIAL MANUFACTURING
• - ' Manufacturing or Warehouse 8
CITY CB-1 C-2 G2a-C-3 ' Industrial Uses Storage B1�
R-1 R-2 R-3
� � � 1/500 sq. ft. 1/1,000 sq.
2 Car Garage 2 Covered space _ of GFA of any ft. GFA
i Per House per unit eldg to be (Bldgs of
PARAMOUNT 1/900sq.ft.of(F'A 1/90D sq.ft.cffQ7R t/400�sq.ft.c� i 5e � 8 eq.ft.
�
or more)
j � . � �9 spaces for
� , bldgs. less
than'8;000
of GFA.
� i Bldgs over
I , SO,OOOsq.ft.
.i -1 750s f .
2 standard space 2 Standard Space ���Per unit Office 1/300 sq ��Z�000 sq.ft
Gener� Retail Q General Retail or General RetaiL�l within a garage within a garage one of which ft (W/hse)
. Services 1/900 sq. Services 1/900 sq. or Services 1/ I should be �/300sq. ft.
ft. of GFA ft. of GFA 900 sq. ft. of � coveredti.e. Comm. 1/400sq.
GFA ' � 1 bdrm or effi ft. (Office) "
CoMMERCE Where there are mo than 20 spaces, 2 8 of the spacesi ficiency).(20 1/900sq. ft.��
may be designed fo compact cars. � , � or more s�aces (Commercial)
- 258 for canpac )
� z}/per unit;t �
' to be locaRed
� . in garage �
�
j .
, rexnin� JUxVEY Y'UN '1'HG l;l'1'Y Vk' LYNWUUU- A CUMPAftATIVC AIVALYJIJ Wl'1'H [VY:lbnnVxln� �.iilca.
� ' � , p� ' LYNWOOD COMPTON {�pp� NORWALK I COMMERCE PARAMO[Nf
� 1/2 fixed seats or 1/150 sq, ft. of 7/150sq .ft. of F.A ¢
. BUSINFSS Sai00IS 1/25 sq.ft. of sitting �p 1/per 2 s��Rs
area �i � �city
LIBRARIFS ' � 1/250sq. ft. � (�A
� SFNIOR QTIZFN (60-over) �/ P�'��it �
B�ARDING/ROOMING HOUSE �/ P�' r� 1/ every 2 guest 2 �� �� .
rooms �`?��p� � 1/per - roan
PUBLIC USFS (Utilities� � � �
Facilities Etc.) ` ( 1/SOOsq. cf GFA
CVPDOOR
1/2,000 s�, ft. �
RACC,(JEf BAi.i. � .
� 3/ per caat
TT7piyg� pp,[�,g 1/per trailer site &
, 1;ea qlt �razlers locat � � 2 F gt� f � ¢ /Per trail,a lct & t/
. in _Seperat=� pkg �azea i .�1/ d t�H 5i � 8 [�9�Y h.o utits f�
' TkUIX S1CHtA(� 6 TRA[4SPORTATI � .
YARLIS . . 1�Pa �diicle 6 a3�h;.,t.7
s�ne fa � 3 qs�xs
7RUQCING d 7RUQ( TFRMIIiAIS . -� 1/1,00�7. ft cf C�A . ,
.. � witfdn , hlrb 8 1
� ..... HAPIDICAPPfD � 1 / to every 40 spa�s � � � � �''
, provided & 1 to eveey 1/40 plus �
aaa�t�� soo s�� i��ioo S�� �
�, �''F' P�p�'Y P���' within 400' of Within 500' of
property
- SIItVI(� STATICNS
2 spaces per bay Z��[g �Y
' AViCI�1�BZLE DZSMANPLING YARD� / 7 p ° p
JOCM d SALVAGE YARDS � ��rd'Sp�t�A2 f. .
, � f�2 ��0 .ft.
�
I
• I
y
i
I .
,
. . �
�
A SURVEY OF ESTABLISHED PARKING STANDARDS FOR GENERAL OFFICES AND
MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICES IN NEIGHBORING CITIES.
CITY TYPE OF MEASUREMENT
' Parking Determined By The Gross Floor
i
" ; Area Of Building.
I
� I
� General Offices ; Medical and
� ; Dental Offices
i '
i �
� �
i '
i '
i �
i '
i '
Bell � 1:200sq.ft. GFA ; 1:100sq.ft. GFA
i
i '
Bellflower � 1:200sq.ft. GFA ; 1:200sq.ft. GFA
i
i '
Downey i 1:350sq.ft. GFA ; 1:250sq.ft. GFA
i
i �
Lawndale i 1:300sq.ft. GFA i 1:200sq.ft. GFA
i
i �
Torrance � 1:300sq.ft. GFA ; 1:200sq.ft. GFA
i
South Gate i 1:200sq.ft. GFA � 1:150sq.ft. GFA
i ,
i i
DISK 7:SURVEY
, RESOLUTION NO. 2259
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CONIIKISSION OF THE _
CITY OF LYNWOOD RECOMMENDING CITY ADOPTION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25-14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
WITH RESPECT TO OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood, did,
pursuant to law, conduct a public hearing on a proposed amendment to
� the Lynwood Municipal Code with respect to the above subject; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood
considered all pertinent testimony offered at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that
the project is exempt from the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines
as amended by Section 15061b (3) and is on file in the Community
Development Department and the office of the City Clerk.
Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines
as follows:
A. The proposed amendment will be consistent with the
objectives and the development policies of the City of
Lynwood.
B. The proposed amendment will not unreasonably constrain the
use of property by landowners and developers.
C. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the General
Plan.
Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood, based
upon the aforementioned findings and determinations, hereby recommends
City Council adoption of the proposed amendment.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this llth day of April, 1989, by the members
of Planning Commission voting as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Donald Dove, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Vicente L. Mas, Director Henry Barbosa
Community Development Dept. General Counsel
DISK 46: RE502259
1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LYNWOOD AMENDING CHAPTER 25, THE OFFICIAL
ZONING ORDINANCE, OF THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL
CODE WITH RESPECT TO OFF-STREET PARKING
STANDARDS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 Chapter 25, Section 25-14.1 (Off Street Parking;
Applicability), 14.3 (Size of Parking Spaces) 14.4 (Access) shall
be amended, Section 25 14.6 ABC except language pertaining to
Ordinance No. 934 and handicapped parking language (C) shall be
deleted in its entirety. while 25.14.6.5 (Minimum Off-Street
Parking Requirements) is hereby added to Chapter 25.
25-14 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADZNG
AREAS
Amended To Read As Follows:
25-14.1 Off-Street Parking; Applicability
In all zoning districts, there shall be provided at the
time any building is erected, enlarged, increased in
capacity or changed from a nonconforming use to a
permitted use, off-street parking spaces in acordance
with the requirements of this chapter and the design
standards of the City, except where the floor area of a
single-family structure in a residential zoning district
is increased by less than fifty percent (35�).
(Ordinance No. 1184.)
25-14.2 Design and Development
The provisions of this section shall be incorporated
into all applicable design standards to which the City
currently adheres, e.g., City of Lynwood Driveway
Standards, L.A. County Road Department Standards, etc.
All parking areas shall be paved with hard surface and
sloped so as to be drained of all surface water.
(Ordinance No. 1131.)
25-14.3 Amended To Read As Follows:
Size of Parking Spaces
Amended Each off street parking space shall not be less than
twenty (20) feet in length and nine (9) feet in width,
for standard car sizes, or fifteen (15) feet in length
and seven (7) feet and six (6) inches in width for
compact car sizes. Exclusive of access driveways or
aisles, exempt as noted below:
a. Any parking space that is immediately adjacent to a
wall, structural column, light standards, or
similar obstruction on one or both of its longer
sides sYiall be at least ten (10) feet in width for all
standard car spaces or seven (7) feet and six (6)
inches for all compact car spaces.
DISK 46:ORDZOAI
1
b. Spaces within a building shall be ten feet by
twenty feet (1Ox20) or eight and one half feet by
seventeen feet (8.5x17) as applicable to standard
� or compact car spaces.
Amended c. Smaller spaces for compact automobiles may be
permitted for up to 20$ of the required parking .
spaces in non-residential parking areas
(commercial) industrial with at least one hundred
and fifty (150) parking spaces, twenty five (25$)
of the parking spaces may be compact if the
development proposal requires two-hundred and fifty
(250) spaces or more. The smaller spaces must be
prominently labled as compact car spaces.
. The use of compact parking spaces shall be
permitted only where Site Plan approval for the
proposed parking area has been granted in
accordance with Section 25-32 of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 1131.)
d. Tandem parking may be permitted with certain types
of commercial uses where there is attendant
parking. The use of tandem parking shall be
permitted only where Site Plan approval has been
granted in accordance with Section 25-32 of this
chapter or pursuant to Section 25-5.1 (Condominium
Ordinance).
25-14.4 Access .
There shall be adequate provisions for ingress and
egress to all parking and loadinq spaces where a lot
does not abut on a public street. For easement of
access on a public street there shall be provided an
unoccupied and unobstructed easement of an access or
' service drive of not less than twenty (20) feet in width
of right of way leading to the parking or storage areas
or loading or unloading spaces required in the
commercial and industrial zones. A wider right of way
width may be required by the Planning Commission as a
condition to permit approval when found to be necessary
in the interest of the public health, safety and qeneral
welfare. In any case, where an access or service drive
is not provided through access or where parking design
is such that satisfactory turn around is not possible, a
turn around having a radius of forty (40) feet shall be
provided. (Ord. No. 808)
Under no circumstance shall anyone be allowed to back
out into the street/public right of a parking lot
in the commercial, industrial or multi-family
' residential zone.
� 25-14.5 Computation of Parking Requirements
Where several different places of assembly such as rooms
or halls are contained within one use or building, the
gross floor area or number of seats used to determine
off-street parking requirements shall be the place of
assembly or combination of several places of assembly
that would normally be used at any one time, whichever
will accommodate the larger number of people. Where
several uses are contained within a buildinq the off-
street parking area required shall be the total of each
of the requirements of all such uses.
DISK 46:ORDZOAI
2
25-14.6.5 Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements
� Use Parking Spaces Required
Same Banks 1 for each 200sq.ft. of
gross floor area ,
New Business offices� such as 1 for each 300sq ft. of
public utiYity, commercial, gross floor area
insurance agencies, real
estate,sales
Same Boarding or Rooming house 1 space per room and
one space for manager
/employee
Same - Bowling Alleys 5 spaces for each lane
Child day care and nursery 1 space per teacher or
schools employee
Amended Churches 1 for each 6 fixed
seats simultaneously
for assembly purposes
or, if there be no
fixed seats, then 1 for
each seventy (70)sq.
ft. of floor space used
for assembly purposes
Same Dance (Other than tavern
dance). public assembly
and exhibition hall
without fixed seats:
one (1) space for each
(50) square feet of
floor area used for
assembly or dancing.
Amended Dwellings,Single-Family 2 enclosed parking
or Two-Family (attached spaces for each
or detached (R-1, R-2 dwelling unit
zone)
Amended Dwellings, multiple (more 1 covered/1 uncovered
than two families)(R-3 zone) spaces for each unit,
' and 3 open spaces of
each ten units
Where it is physically impractical to provide a double garage or
an additional one-car garage. Existing single-family dwelling
with a single garage may be enlarged without the necessity of
providing an enclosed two-car garage provided that at no time the
aggregate square footage does not exceed 35� of the original
square footage of the dwelling.
New Furniture and appliances, 1 for each 300sq. ft.
hardware, household equip- of gross floor area
ment, service shops,
clothing or shoe repair or
personal services such as
barber and beauty shops
DISK 46:ORDZOAI
3
Same General Hospitals 1 per bed
Intensive care with surgery 1 per bed
� Convalescent 1 per (5) beds
Hotels/Motels 1 per bedroom
2 spaces for the
Manager .
Same High Schools, Jr. High Schools, 5 spaces per classroom
Elementary Schools, Public or
Private
Amended Industrial uses, except as 1 for each 3 employees
otherwise specified herein on the maximum working
shift, or 1 for each
450sq.ft. of floor
area, whichever amount
is qreater
New Institutional, Governmental 1 for each 250sq.ft. of
Offices floor area
New Laboratories, biochemical, 1 for each 300sq.ft. of
X-Ray, dental, research and gross floor area
testing
Libraries 1 for each 250sq.ft. of
gross floor area
Manufacturing uses, such as 1 for each 3 employees
creameries, bottling on the maximum working
establishments, bakeries, shift or 1 for each
canneries, printing and 300sq.ft. of gross
engraving shops, etc. floor area, whichever
amount is greater
New Mini-warehouse buildings 1 for each twenty-five
used for self storage storage cubicles and
distributed equally
throughout the storage
area; two way
driveways, one twenty-
six foot wide parking
and travel lane.
Amended Mortuaries and Funeral 1 for each 25sq.ft. of
Aomes floor area of assembly
rooms used for service
New Motor vehicle sales, 1 for each 400sq. ft.
machinery sales or of gross floor area
wholesale stores when cars are displayed
New Pharmacies, drugstores 1 for each 200sq.ft. of
gross floor area
Professional Offices: 1 for each 250sq. ft.
Attorneys, Accountants, of qross floor area
Enqineers, Architects
Medical, Dental, Optometrist, 1 for each 250sq.ft. of
Chiropractors, Oculist, gross floor area
Opticians
DISK 46:ORDZOAI
4
New Retail stores, except as
otherwise specified herein:
-having not more than 5,000 1 for 200sq.ft. of
` sq.ft. of floor area gross floor area
having more than S,OOOsq.ft. 25 spaces plus 1 for
of floor area ' each 150sq.ft. of gross
floor area in excess of �
S,OOOsq.ft.
Same Restaurants, cocktail lounges, 1 space for each
bars 100sq.ft. of gross
floor area
Same Senior citizen housing, 1 space per unit
defined as housing designed
for and intended for occupancy
by ambulatory persons sixty
(60) years of age and over
Amended Theaters 1 for each seat up to
800 seats plus 1 for
each 5 seats over 800
New Trailer Parks 1 for each sleeping
unit or dwelling unit
Trade and/or vocational 3 plus one for each
schools student that is
designed to accomodate
Transportation and trucking Adequate number as
terminal facilities determined by the
Planning Commission
Warehouse and Storage Building 1 for each 1,000 sq.ft.
of gross floor area
provided that any
portion devoted to
office or sales area
shall provide 1 space
per 200sq.ft. of floor
area so used.
Section 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection
subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or place,
is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by
the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinance or it application to other persons
, or places.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have
adopted this ordinance, and each section, subsection,
subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions, or the I
application thereof to any person or place, be declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
DISK 46:ORDZOAI
I
5 I
� First read at regular meeting of the City Council of
. said City held on the day of
, 1989, and finally adopted and ordered
published at a meeting of said Council held .
on the day of , 1989 by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
EVELYN M. WELLS, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
, APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Vicente L. Mas, Director Henry S. Barbosa
Communitg Development Dept. General Counsel
DISK 46:ORDZOAI
6
f
! n � �
( n r., ;E�:�1 � 1 �{�1�1 I`1�. . .
DATE: April il, 1989 ^- �'�l� � �2
Ci a� �
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Vicente L. Mas, Director
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Zonina Ordinance Amendment Case No. 2 Regulating
Propertv Maintenance Citv-Wide
PROPOSAL :
Staff is proposing to amend Chapter 25, the official Zoning and
. Sign Ordinance of the City of Lynwood with respect to Nuisance
, and Property Maintenance.
FACTS
It has become a matter of great concern regarding the neglect and
disrepair of the Housing and Property stock located within the
•� City. Provisions in the Municipal Code do not adequately address
these issues.
At the moment, Articles II and III of the City's Nuisance
abatement and Property Maintenance overlap to a great extent and
should not only be combined but should also deal with specific
issues.
This item is continued from the Planning Commission's regularly
' scheduled meeting of March 14, 1989.
RECOMMENDATIONS
" The staff developed and resubmitted the proposed ordinance to the
City Attorney's for review and comment. Staff request that this item
be.continued to the Planning Commission's regularly scheduled meetinq
of May 9, 1989.
DISK 41:88100ZOA
I
1
_ i
�-. �, :-�, ^., f 3; '�` i I'' i �
DATE: April 11, 1989 �. �".',,.%: i:� ��i�:� iV�. �
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
�,�,�:- , s�J. Gup # 1—
�: ;:�� i'��
FROM: Vicente L. Mas, Director
' Community Development Department �
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Case No. 1
Applicant: Jose Luis Lopez
Proposal•
The applicant requested approval of a modification to Conditional
Use Permit No. 85075 in order to build an additional one story
two bedroom unit at 11333 Wright Road, Lynwood, California 90262.
Facts
The applicant has put up his property for sale, and has withdrawn
his application.
Recommendation
Since the applicant has withdrawn his application, Staff requests
that this matter be discontinued.
DISK 44:CUP1 i
�
�
I
�
I
I
I
�
I
I
�. :- � �� ,, � : ,,. /? �'� ;
/� .:► i,,J.
DATE: April 11, 1989 1'�� -�'� �%��'E i �'--i. �
�� r ��P � �
TO: PLANNING CONII�IISSION Ci i
FROM: Vicente L. Mas, Director
Community Development Department '
SUSJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Case No. 5
Applicant: Sergio Lopez
Proposal•
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit
to build four apartment units in the R-2 (Two-Family Residential)
zone at 12430 Harris Avenue, Lynwood, CA.
Facts•
The project is for three two-story buildings to comprise four (4)
two-bedroom apartment units. In all, four two-car garages will
be provided and all but one would be attached. Staff initially
recommended approval of the project. However, a controversy
arose between the applicant and an alleged new owner of the
property which was brought to Staff's attention. Staff advised
both parties to substantiate their claims to the property by
producing documents to that effect. Both parties failed to
produce said documents and Staff recommended continuation of the
case.
This item is continued from the Planning Commission's regularly
scheduled meeting of March 14, 1989.
Recommendation:
Since the applicant and the alleged new owner of the property
failed to produce the documents to substantiate ownership, Staff
requests that this matter be taken off the Agenda until resolved.
I
�
DISK 44:CUP5
\
�
' n ��- ,- r, ,-�-: � h �
� t '�. „_..'. � i ����i'� I�V�.
DATE: April 11, 1989
V f`'� C v L!�i J. �--1�
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Vicente L. Mas, Director �
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Variance Case No. 1
Applicant: Lawrence R. and Brenda J. Bible
Proposal•
The applicants are requesting a variance for a five (5') foot high
wrought�iron fence along the fr.ont yard setback of their property in the
R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone at 10992 Pine Avenue, Lynwood.
BACKGROUND:
This case was continued from the March 19, regularly scheduled
meeting to April 14 due to a tie vote and, recommendation of the
Staff Attorney.
Facts•
1. Source of Authority.
While Section 25 4.7 of the Lynwood Municipal Code regulates fences
in all residential zones, Section 25-26 requires that a Variance be
obtained from the Planning Commission when, because of special
circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of
the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed
by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification.
2. Property Location and Size
The site is located on the East side of Pine Avenue between
Imperial Boulevard and Pendleton Avenue. It is rectangular in shape
and measured at approximately 7,588.4 square feet (68.5'x110.78').
3. Existing Land Use
The site is developed with a Single Family home and is I
surrounded by the following land uses:
North- Residential
South- Residential
East- Residential
West- Residential
4. Land Use Description
General Plan Zoning
North- Residential R-1 I
South- Residential R-1
East- Residential R-1 I
West- Residential R-1 j
I
5. Project Characteristics �
The variance request would allow the applicant to extend the height I
of the proposed fence from the required forty eight(48") inches as �
determined by the Zoning Ordinance to sixty (60") inches thus �
making a difference of twelve (12") inches. i
DISK 7:VARIANI
1
,�
6. Site Plan Review
At its regular meeting of February 23, 1989 the Site Plan Review
Committee denied the proposed project.
7. Zoning Enforcement History .
None of record.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
1. Consistency with General Plan .
The proposed land use is consistent with the existing Zoning
classification R-1 and the General Plan designation of Single
Family Residential.
2. Site Suitability
The property is adequate in size and shape to accomodate a
standard fence relative to structures, parking, walls, fences,
landscaping, driveways and other development features required by
the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Compatibility
The proposed height of the fence is incompatible with.the heights
of fences on neighboring properties.
- 4. Compliance with Development Standards
Specific Findings: .
The property is a standard lot with no hardships experienced that
would require an exceptional privilege and does not meet the State
requiremnts for findings of a Variance. �
Undoubtedly granting of this Variance would set a precedent in the
city that would eventually result in the increased construction of
fences of this nature.
Staff's determination of these findings is to recommend denial to
the Planning Commission on the Variance request.
5. Environmental Assessment
This development is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
State CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully Yequests that after consideration the Planning
Commission deny the Variance Request:
" a. Finding that a hardship has not been established that would
require a Variance for Case No. 1 as determined by Section
25-26 of the City of Lynwood Zoning Code.
b. Finding that the applicant/property owner will not be deprived
of priviZeges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the
same vicinity if the recommendation of denial is upheld.
DISK 7:VARIANI
Z
; ,�
LOCATION MAP
.
.
m � o �i Sp —�—� w �o� ii __- ryrn v—•
ti ��„q ,..i,., � �.� U_ . esn�L��� �iY's`ner �i �
� �' PENOLE7 N � ry' � --w q —�
� . � �� � ro nm si �i . . • o . � /� o�, W
9 uR '�' 7Ja JO fOp
�s. ° q� ' I4�v �h�r,�ry iio� loco� , ioqmp J p R rvY
� � t ���� Y� S I�{d 1Q .�y�'I I I �'� re°�`" <� ia�� \\gTZU.�_,Hi3ol� .�3to
i _�.p,
�i °i o � ia "'1. � � I h�� J IO1)I 1� ie� ��,�d� ��
>4 x —y--- ,, 1 , $ ��'
/o9a3 � I F��' N 41�53� 9� lolb/ ��53a ` �.. m
39
�SB /67°Sr7e j I � II S 4/ � 1� /6yNl �p�y} ��� F'
%5/ . Z � /69567,0 � lo IDq 1� �l +� b ys, ��
o � . 5�� �°g S'' a a ,
/0Y43 b - lo5b I n � i a �i�
� /56 � • /b9 ° � � + B CK A , �O GOC B BLO C � � �
.. �' v io r7 I �� rn,�� 1� � ,A Ya r. 10yy
iss � j, im § I �I � ies �� �i oq'e 0 �°�i3� ' 09 — �r h
/09 a3 o P � ��,, a. �'. ,,
� ISa y /�/ ,l al� v8 / @ 09�'� �04�1 /oq8a g I� �I .
- q � � �PG 47ij Y7 j� _ � � ° � .
i �� . � A ,(, � �0'1�! � �oS��. ` I Maai
u�� ` �,� ti»6 � aa �v�vi a.�RP` 4 i W i w i.fe w a
� i >. n>� c n
� \
/MPEH/AL
� 9H 'v il • • y �� N t � m � . oso ,w, !o
. . y } I � 4 7a4� Ny � .� � I I .n
_--� S n, � J 2. I•V /2 // /0 • 9' B 6 6 IT 3
�' � C .; Q ^ � ro ro �
. S � I �� �� 2 � ` 2� ? , � �
. / � wy . '' •'
I �YI A ) ,
J�
TRACT / ooP'�y�9 � Y "'� , e' r `p a, � a a�; is� b� i u �s. i"' is,
a �'
., ` q � �Y i � '4o- '
/h � ' ' o LOS FLORES
n ,
Nw � 1lY N/.4
� b �. r. �"� y s � �� �0 /(0)a � �' • .Cr / 4
" !� . �s70 y� �IO�s!
� � B � I ` l ' � � I
. , l r l �.• �ios� ��. 0� � iroJe � h O�a ' iieyi
I/�' Ih h � , l�p , • ,���Z.y o // p3/ b J
�' � r, n s y o, q = h 8 l J ,,, y �..
Y ,p Z ,ti
� .L�63• �i ��� � ,!,
� r°1 ; 8 iiot� $� � 3/ioay _^d ?r yQ J 9
� � I � ^ � $ //o� I�uSL � � 19� z� Dy �'wi
�!�• Q o � `ty�� �iioGp � ♦ ?O 6ia��+
/ /lo ' /�0l1,� � //DSo 7
� � � $ l�q9o ��5. y Y.`� Y " ia "�c
� �,o� . , �,o�, �lo(of'
/ ry TRA , � 3 8 � ,°� � � °ia��
� �' �-- s W � .a �b ,
. I _ �Y� �0 —e,— Z s '� �, �� o
r �
. Q � /o
/ , � f J � 4 � � ,a ' 2
C� }v h p 9 � s` , // v
is
� :IV� ' �z
, C<ls� �vo. v��. 1
,,
!
' . . . . . . , . . . . . ' . . . . � " � . / ,
��U . �: � ' .
�OS/ ��/v�� �dJ 1�`
Ifl�{�F+-11 - -_...
� _,. -�
�
2:
�
� �
� ..`;\ R) � O�
� � m Z -� �'
� �
o . _ � � �,
� Z �, �� a
0
� w9 "LKw�t- C � � �. m V Z�
y � � � m �
G�-�� � � ''
w
� r , � b
� E 3 ° -� � ° � a
�° N p/� 0' fi �
�� - � io � ° N P' RI n
o „ in
, � � � ��.t�JEUIq-�l I � �
� '
. Q r.
�
° ° 1
3
(p �'I� �,�:DoK Lti/} LL Sz � —�i 7'i 31-� oo wR ` '
.TYI7 P6,e! A �: {� 1,Uy :
f;�. i q � ,t� n' �
,
l`�.:.�c �i�': � d ��li� ��'�. - .
DATE: April 11, 1989 CAS N�. VA�.�'�_
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Vicente L. Mas, Di.rector
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: VARIANCE- CASE NO. 2� ,
Applicant: Ceneyda Reyes
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting approval of a parking variance in the
R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zone at 10978 San Vicente Avenue,
Lynwood, CA., 90262.
FACTS:
Measured at approximately five thousand and forty (5,040) sq.
ft., the subject property is determined to be a substandard lot
yet it has three legal dwelling units. Per Section 25-15 of the
City of Lynwood Zoning Code, the said buildings are categorized
as Leaal nonconforming buildings.
A legal nonconforming building cannot be expanded or structurally
changed and if up to fifty (50�) percent is destroyed (by fire or
by any other calamity), it cannot be rebuilt in its original form
but shall meet all the standard requirements and conditions of
the existing zoning code.
Basically, the applicant is requesting a parking variance that
would allow him to provide only three one car garages for the
three dwelling units rather than the required six parking spaces
three of which should be covered as determined by Section 25-4.5
of the Lynwood Municipal Code. She also proposes to enclose an
existing porch, remodel the living room, kitchen and bath on the
single family house.
Staff recommended approval of the parking variance only.
However, the applicant's consultant requested a continuation of
the case for further discussion with staff on the issue of
remodelling the front house. Staff made various attempts to
reach the consultant for said discussion but all to no avail.
This item was continued from the Planning Commission's regularly
scheduled meeting of February 14, 1989.
Recommendation
Since the applicant's consultant did not show up for discussions
regarding the remodelling of the front house, Staff respectfully
request that this item be continued to the Planning Commission's
regularly scheduled meeting of May 9, 1989.
DISK 46:CASE2
.�`,
1,
f; ` _- "' `� `� { -� � r l`�
n �;�:-
DATE: Apr'll 11, 1989 �� �✓' �� f "��'� �ti��. /
.�' ����:�� r•�` #
TO: PLANN3NG CONII�IISSION ` V• � G '
FROM: Vicente L. Mas, Director
Community Development Department �
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE- CASE NO. 1
Applicant: Lynwood tJnified School District
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting a Zone Change from R-2 (Residential
Two Family) to CF (Community Facilities) zone in order to be
consistent with the General Plan designation Public Land Uses.
FACTS•
The site is located at 11300 Spruce Street, west of Bullis Road
between Century Boulevard and Platt Avenue. The site is occupied
by 74 classrooms, a gymnasium, and administrative service
buildings. Parking for the site is located on the south end of
the site and on street along Bullis Road.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
The present zoning classification (R-2) is inconsistent with the
General Plan designation of Public Land Uses.
The zone change would allow construction of the Administration
building and allow the current school use to continue while
resolving an inconsistency between the Zone Change and General
Plan resignation. The proposed Administrative Office Building
will be approximately 49,000 sq.ft. in size with 56 parking
spaces at grade and 79 spaces below grade. The Administrative
Office would employ approximately 125 employees and contain a
broadroom/meeting hall accommodating 125 persons.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as
amended, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. It has been I
determined that the project could not have a significant effect I
on the environment based upon the completion of the Initial Study
and Environmental Checklist, which has found that there are no
significant impacts resulting from the project. I
i
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration, the I
Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2273:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2273 recommending City Council I
adoption of Zoning Amendment, Case No. 4.
i
2. Recommend that the City Council certify the Negative �
Declaration as adequate.
Attachments• I
I
1. Location Map j
2. Site Plan i
3. Resolution No. 2273
DISK 7:CASE1 i
I
_. I
:£
RECOMMENDATION:
;f
S't�ff respectfully reguests that after consideration, the
Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2273:
1. Adopt Resolution No: 2273 recommending City Council
adoption of Zoning Amendment, Case No. 4.
2. Recommend that the City Council certify the Negative
Declaration as adequate.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan �
3. Resolution No. 2273
DISK 7:CASE1
i
�
i
I
.:�
�� : LOG,ATION iVIAP
.:,
,,
-� -- -___.----- _--
� `' �. '�r —.�o "' ' '__' R - rs�oe"a n _ '_ '_' . _ _ _—_
P Y
h ti o Q�� p / �� s � � �� ��9� CENTURY BOUL£VARD
� � . (,J f77 /2J . � �°. /70���t 63 . � ..
' I� � /$ .Ol /36.OJ .. � '
/ - • /➢G.O'!' K 'SQQ! JO � .
I°, ne iz� nl lo � at EI I; ei i �mF
� � . � ias.w nsoe ° �2cov ix.rn iaca�
ARCA °° �' //1O //6 � � l/3 . /// //J �.
/
' .— . . TEC�
� 69.9 SO �
.
P P� �� � .
. ' ' y //E //D /d0 �/2/ /27;
n Y{ � a.:
� � � �
.::
992 50
3f '
N
, L
� ��� �
� y c i r:
�
J z '
j N
V
m
------ T P �'�
- .� R
'�PqRK/NC AREA '
� . � Bo SaG:-.
/ r O �
� saa� aa ioo !o i o io � �0' ao' °. . � ° � ° w za�i �so • �� � ��401 G5 II�o �
� . . , . , �� Y ,,���� .� � , � ., I � � a .i i4oS . I � o . ^ a s � .
� �;,,r/f�7 . nss� � ii#s� .�u�s \i9s�a W..ub¢ � iisi ii o a lu ue� � iiA� � ueci i�s 1 ii �� �� �� ;
�.�i .�9 � : " 5 �`.�. . `�s o �m � � m �' s n ^ �r:' '� �I n � � A�9'�� � y e5.75�ea.`..� "'
,'�ry � �n ro M rn ro�h ro fy h'NObI M �n M ^n h M'� �n �.^,� p ..
i n io i - i . ia y� 11 iba � �'Y � � 0 h
W PLATT AVENU£ Y� �' i a:
� �i � � .a � � s i � J ,. �o ' o p j y so w �f �v .. 'p fir i '� !t � • •� 'Xi�s a o i4� � ro {��
.I I J �+ ; � J 9 ly I�� .4 Y I (� � � O I n� � M iCl 0 b� 1b � n ./ Z�' J. I S 0 I:
m I` I ^a h � o
6I 7 /IOE� /S¢9 � /1� /I// �e y .°� / /ZM M /1/3 M /1YG � � 6 � / 7 /I/E /Z/9 ° w � �a� ° .
� 9 /1/5 a
� �` n � I ! � ; ` \\ �' � ,:
�� � � i 1143 ( (. .°, k
. � � ,4
' � u t' Z
,�c �
ZC 1/1989
.,
RESOLUTION NO. 2273 ,
n
T'
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE .
�. LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE OFFICIAL
ZONING ORDIPEANCE, CHANGING THE ZONING ON LOT 900
OF TRACT NO.. 15016 MB PAGES 40 TO 45 OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY RECORDER OFFICE, LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, LOCATED AT 11300 SPRUCE STREET, DESIGNATED
AS ZONE CHANGE NO. 1.
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Planning Commission, pursuant to law,
conducted public hearing on a proposed zone change for certain
properties as described above; and
WAEREAS, the Commission reports that legal publication was made
in the Lynwood Journal, that notice to property owners was mailed, and
notice of hearing was posted, all as required by ordinance and in the
time required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood
° does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the subject site located in the R-2 (Two-Family
Residential) zone will be changed to CF (Community Facilities)
zone.
Section 1. The Commission recommends a change of zone from R-2
to CF for the properties, as desiqnated in the ordinance and map
attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, based on the following findings:
A. The current R-2 (Residential Two Family) zone of the subject
site is inconsistent with the General Plan designation.
B. The subject site would accommodate proposed development
due to its size, location, and proximity to the Civic Center
complex land use.
C. A zone change to CF (Community Facilities) would be
consistent with the General Plan designation of Public.
D. The proposed zone change will not be detrimental to the
prope'rties surrounding the subject site:
Section 2. Pursuant to the terms and provisions of the State
CEQA Guidelines, as amended, Section 15073, the Director of Community
Development caused a Negative Declaration to be prepared, and the
Commission recommends that the City Council certify said .Negative
Declaration.
Section 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends City
Council adoption of an ordinance changing the zoning classification
from R-2 (Residential Two Family) to CE (Community Facilities) of the
following properties, legally described as:
Lot 900 of Tract No. 15016 MB 318 pages 40 to 45 of the Los Angeles
county Recorder Office, Los Angeles County, commonly known as 11300
Spruce Street.
' DISK 7:RES02273
1
�,
:�" '
' APPROVED AND ADOPTED this llth day of April, 1989, by the members
of Planning Commission voting as f�llows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
LUCILLE KANKA, CHAIRPERSON
' APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Vicente L. Mas, Director General Counsel
Community Development Dept.
DISK 7: reso2273
• I
_
-
�
�
Z i
�; ZCl
. ORDINANCE NO.
u
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LYNWOOD AMENDING CHAPTER 25, THE OFFICIAL
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL
, CODE, WITH RESPECT TO A ZONE CHANGE ON LOT 900 �
. OF TRACT NO. 15016 MB PAGES 40 TO 45 OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUtITY RECORDER OFFICE, LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, LOCATED AT 11300 SPRUCE STREET,
LYNWOOD, CA., FROM R-2 (RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY)
ZONE TO CF (COMMtINITY FACZLITIES) ZONE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF TAE CITY OF LYNWOOD DOES HEREBY FIND,
RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. -Chapter 25 of the Lynwood Municipal Code and the
Zoning Map of the City of Lynwood are hereby amended to
reclassify certain real property described as follows:
Lot 400 of Tract No. 15016 MB Pages 40 to 45;
Commonly Known as 11300 Spruce Street,
Lynwood, California.
Section 2. Amendment of the Lynwood Zoning Map for Lot
900 of Tract No. 15016 MB pages 40 to 45 is consistent with the
General Plan of the City of Lynwood.
Section 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection,
subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or place, is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision
shal"1 not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance or its application to other persons or places.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted
this ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
cTauses, phrases, or portions, or the application thereof to any
person or place, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of said
City held on the day of , 1989, and finally
adopted and ordered published at a meeting of
said Council held on the day of , 1988, by
the following vote: '
DISK 46:ORD
I
AYES:
, I
�,
; AYES:
�
fi .
" NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: .
PAUL RICHARDS, II, MAYOR
DISK 46:ORD
_
I
I
_ �
�
I
CUP 2
I
, .- -;�, ,�.�
' DATE: April 11, 1989 � ` �' ""
.... �:'.,;'. � � �i'd� `G�.
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION �` �`. `�.' `�- �',' �� �u 1'� #�
V 1� t'._':_. � 1i `J.
FROM: Vicente L. Mas, Director '
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -CASE NO. 2(CUP 2).
Applicant: Lynwood Unified School District
PROPOSAL
The Lynwood Unified School District is proposing to construct a
two-story Administrative Office Building, approximately 49,000
sq.ft. in size, on the Hosler Junior High School site, located at
11300 Spruce Street.
FACTS:
Section 25-12 of the Lynwood Municipal Code regulates the uses
permitted within the Community Facilities 2oning district. The
proposed construction requires a Conditional Use Permit and Site
Plan Review approval pursuant to City Ordinance No. 1318, �
pertaining to new development in Community Facilities Zone.
The approximately ten (10) acre site is occupied by the Hosler I
Junior High School and the Lynwood Administrative Services unit.
The applicant is proposing to develop a two story Administrative
Office Building, approximately 49,000 sq.ft. in size with 56 �
parking spaces provided at qrade and 73 spaces four (4') feet I
below grade. Approximately 125 employees are scheduled to occupy !
the building. A boardroom/meeting hall will accommodate 125 I
persons during extended hours and on weekends. i
Upon completion of Site Plan Review, significant issues were �
revealed regarding the proposed project. The issues including !
parking, building orientation, and deficiencies in the I
Environmental Impact Statement have not been resolved and the
staff would like this item to be continued as a recommendation of I
denial would be inappropriate.
RECOMMENDATION: �
As per direction of the City Council, the Staff is providing I
extended cooperation and support to the Lynwood Unified School �
District for purposes of causing the expeditious completion of
their Administrative Building. Toward this end, staff
respectfully requests that this matter be continued. �
I
I
I
DISK 46:CUP 2A
1 �
I
" CUP 10
4 DATE: April 11, 1989 :,,� ` i J.
u �
'PO: PLAP?D?ING COMMISSION ,:' .`-- �`''�. CUP # I D
. .. . . l:i t��'
FROM: Vicente L. Mas, Director
, Community Development Department
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIR -CASE NO. 10 (CUP 10)
Applicant: Elvin Sequeira
PROPOSAL
. The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit
to develop a one story three H) bedroom single family house in
the R-2 (Two�Family Residential) zone at 10978 Duncan Avenue,
Lynwood, CA.
FACTS•
1. Source of Authority
- Section 25-4.2 of the Lynwood Zoning Ordinance requires that
a Conditional Use Permit be obtained in order to build or
relocate dwelling units in the R-2 zone.
2. Property Location
The subject property is a rectangular lot that is located
along Duncan Avenue between Los Flores Boulevard and Borson
Avenue (see attached Location Map).
3. Property Size
The property is a substandard lot that is measured at
' approximately twenty five (25) in width and a depth of 126.71
, feet on the north side and 133.04 feet on the south side with
an area of approximately three thousand two hundred and ten
(3,210) square feet.
,.
4. Existing Land Use '
The property is presently vacant and unmaintained with overgrown
grass and apparently used as a dumping ground. The surrounding
land uses include a mixture of inedium and high density
` residential developments and are as follows: I
North - Two Family Residential
South - Two Family Residential
East - Multi-Family Residential
west - Two Family Residential �,
5. Land Use Description
, The General Plan designation for the subject property is
Townhouse and Cluster Housing, and the zoning classification is
R-2 with the following surrounding land uses.
- General Plan Zoning
North - Townhouse & Cluster Housing North - R-2
South - Townhouse & Cluster Housing South - R-2
• East - Multi-Family East - R-3
West - Townhouse & Cluster Housing West - R-2
DISK 7:CUP 10 �
I
1
6. Proiect Characteristics
The applicant is proposing to build a one story single family
•� house that would consist of three (3) bedrooms, a living room,
kitchen, dini�ig area, and two baths with a detached two-car
garage. Twenty five (25�) percent of the lot is designated
for landscaping. ,
7. Site Plan Review
On March 23, 1989 the Site Plan Review Committee evaluated the
proposed development and recommended approval to the Planning
Commission with specific conditions.
8. Zoning Enforcement History
None of record.
9. Public Response
One letter in support of the propsed project was received
£rom a Mrs. H.M.' Rogers of 10984 Duncan Avenue. A copy of the
letter.is attached.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
: 1. Consistency with General Plan
The property is consistent with the existing zoning
classification (R-2) and the General Plan designation (Townhouse
and Cluster Housing). Therefore, granting Conditional Use Permit
No. 10 will not adversely affect the Lynwood General Plan.
2. Site Suitability
The property is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed development relative to density, bulk of the
structures; parking, walls, fences, landscaping, driveways
and other development features required by the Zoning
Ordinance.
, The property is adequately served with the required public
utilities ;and offers adequate vehicular and pedestrian
accessiblity.
3. Compatibility
� The proposed development is surrounded by a mixture of inedium
_. and high density residential developments; therefore, the
_• project will be compatible with developments in the area.
4. Compliance with Development Standards .
. The proposal meets all of the development standards required
by the Zoning Ordinance with respect to parking; front,
side, and rear-yard setbacks; distance between structures;
lot coverage; open space and landscaping; building height;
unit size and density.
DISK 7:CUP10
z
5. Conditions of_Approval
� The improvements as .proposed, subject to the conditions
recommended by the 3ste Plan Review Co�nittee, would neither have
• a negative effect nor would it interfere with the values of the
surrounding properties or endanger the public health, safety or
welfare.
� 6.. Benefits to Community
The proposed deve2opment will aid to aesthetically upgrade the
neighborhood and act as a catalyst in fostering other quality.
� developments. Furthermore, it will add favorably to the City's
' housing stock and provide additional affordably-priced housing in
furtherance of the policies of the Housing Element of the General
Plan. •
� 7. Environmental Assessment
According to State CEQA Guidelines, the project is Categorically
Exempt. The Exemption has been prepared and is on file in the
Community Development Department and the Office of the City
Clerk.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration, the
Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2260:
-� , �
1. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the.State CEQA Guidelines as amended by Section 15061 b(3).
2. Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 10, subject to the stated
conditions and requirements.
Attachments
1. Letter
2. Location Map
3. Resolution No. 2272
4. Plot Plan
DISK 7:CUP 10
3
, :
, ; ,
<. ; < .::
<
,; ; -. , ;:.: .:: >
,. .. . :
, .;. ,, ,. .
�
. ,, ..
,
;: , ,.. ;:; ....
._. ...._._ ...... .... ..... :. ,...:..:... ..:.... ...:.._ .....:....::...... _ _ _ . �. ..�... � .... ..... . ; __. .. _.:. ..... _:,.,. .......
. wav�.�ww• w+ ' +"?�eaw w.w:�++Y•T�+wyv+�v.+r� m+�taKtn +bhs�n��eW4�Ow�n�a.uu�N�ri.�w+wM++Wwww�+row«+e�rM�e+w++www•�vV��YW�Mrw*�nVM�
w.�.-.r+rra�na.�nnr�iV4�MWiWV�KiYVV���1 hf44lM}I� W4W'����w�`wNnnM'MwT� _. ... ... . . . . . .
� � �� � � ,
� � � � � - `�j
�-'i:� m � � � � r�
u; °� � � ' �
E.� � �e � � � � � 3 , �
� ���� . .�� "� �
�u,3 � :� L: �\ �
,�':� ' :� ��' � r �
� `` O
,, - ..� �, � � � �� �� �
� � � a
� o ��
► �
� � �� �� �
� � � �
� , � . �; �
� a � � ��
� ��
� � � �' � � �
� � � : � �
��
�m � �� � . �
� �
, � : :f
�� � � ..
. _ .
, �
f
,
- . . . ,_ . �.
LOCATION IMAP
-��� �' \a �\- r r, i L � O ... �' � � � � , .. ..._-, _ - - . .
5��� � n � .( A� M N rJi \ �
A\ \}. � 5 � \�� � �
'.�C'� : iai m ...n �� \
m �r f�' \
: ..� r�z. ,.,N � � 'y
�� m � � \
�d� �?7 5_1LN. o d• ��� Y� \ .
c ` _" � g ` ` - \ \
p s'� � �y,�-_� • I�� '° �rr �' �' �. �, /' '.)
� �G�10 ^ 1 �— � � ••' \
i ',-'m R� - Q >. ��Q ;-'O �• �� �so � f �'i6 � �, \
� , d 1 � e�„ .�'\
t �` g m � --r •� � . r\ � Td
;--� fV ; •` ��� 0�.�.+ t" 1�� ' �+ \ 7
o •- � ' �.— � •'� $
^ � � ^ ���. wM � ♦ � ��� m � • w $ 1 ` ���� � •Y \
• -.N � , . '�� � � \
�:..� N - Y O� p-�''—•'� `.- 6� q� Sc � :��\ .
01 ♦ -6 � — m ��� In � � . ii
. :.�_ N � _ —fi- R Q .nn R .. 9 � � • ^� `
.���� ' O � _� � ' � �i � �� \
--- N , 1,-.. �7� -..' ..-�' — . . � �.
,..,. — �„ , M �: _ � i
T� '.,
.e�.� �_ 4� R��M �� / � 9 � �� 1� �
N fST' $ Y� �1"' \
ey� • , M �a���� N 8 �,F �
�o .iN �— �j $ � «� P�"' ., u •N $ \
p� a �,�i• .�� �.. E � a ���
�i 7 O . i��-" � Na p� � �
m u.,..
'" � �_'. � r r� -'C—" a R \
=-m' cv • .,.., � i �, 2, so �
� �- ...,• _•:� -°--... �,.... �� 12 ss.o � O� �
a, -m ..�..
— a m n ... � � .
. ^° �.S � Ib�� .
� �� r � � � Il.i .... 4n. I y ¢ 1�1� � �
�_� �� 17 j1.. YpC7 � � T8
N ` ...i � �' =, �
. . , � � ..+ — � � T o o r
- N �„ M �r� r-. � 14 e no���L
..m �� ..�1n IQ�..v' ....• lD. r � � �9 J• R ��� I II
- q a+ u.� ... � �..... :. ' i � --�„�,,,�- �
_ _�- 4 � � � � �..:w� ..w �, r : � I 't � __ ' $ 1\�*� �Q_
� � N �'� �—� �� R "�~ N� ^ ' n � � ,` . . �`• •, _pp t � 7
� R � ., .e..RS � ....., � r - I .� 16 � I� � i �� -xx�
.. � � � �!d . N '.I � �rsi� ^ ��..�
c, tr � � s
. a o, 8; .� �d: as , ssx, .' , AVE 5
� � � ^ R ' Y /II � ' 111•
♦ � 5
t � � = °' � I =2 tY '� C
� ): ' _ a � � �, o,>�
� „
f F' �sss� d �+t, u� N��- a ,... � I , �
N � ° a .... �s $ M �., ' � � I 25 . �w ., �„�e
. Ri � N , iv•� � � 2 .,r $
j --o- � ,,.=, � M �n ��.. ----3 24 ,�"�-�s
N �
.. � � . '� Q � � \
. � Q �1 11\VI� ?1� ���w 4 LJ � n♦ 1���� �
a .. y � � .. t�
� ..._ � „w qn, . m . �--'°'�, n
Q R �' �•"';;i. M M J •.r•. , g 22 r,.. �.
� .., „`_ n �,:.� p 5 -- ��+� ' � ��ro
• � • ���,. g m g A � . �..
S �n �n n �C � ,��
G
r �
N
i ' r
. i
�
JGL[. �'��
i.
.�, ... .. -.: . . .:.:.� .:: . _... . � � . ...,. . .
.. : . . :: ..� .
CUP 10/1989
, RESOLUTION NO. 2272
A RESOLUTION OF THE"PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CUP) NO.10 TO CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY
THREE BEDROOM, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IN THE R-2
(TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE, AT 10978 DUNCAN
AVENUE, LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA, 90262.
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Planning Commission, pursuant to law,
conducted a public hearing on subject application for a Conditional
Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission carefully considered all
pertinent testimony offered at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that
the proposal is exempt from the provisions of the State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061 b(3), as Amended; and
WHEREAS, the site is located in the R-2 (Two-Family
Residential) zone, subject to the granting of a Conditional Use
Permit.
Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines
as follows:
A. The site of the proposed use is adequate in size and shape
to accommodate the structures, parking, walls, landscaping,
driveways and other development features required by the
Zoning Ordinance.
B. The granting of the proposed Conditional Use Permit will
not adversely affect the Lynwood General Plan.
C. The structures as proposed, or modified, subject to
conditions, will not have a negative effect on the values
of surrounding properties or interfere with or endanger the
public health, safety or welfare.
D. The site will be developed pursuant to the current zoning
regulations and site plan submitted, reviewed and approved
by the Site Plan Review Committee.
E. The proposed development will add favorably to the housing
stock and will provide additional affordably priced housing
in concert with the policies of the Housing Element of the
General Plan.
F. The proposed development will aid in aesthetically
, upgrading the area and will act as a catalyst in fostering
other quality developments.
" Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood,
based upon the aforementioned findings and determinations, hereby
approves Conditional Use Permit, Case No. CUP 10, provided the
following conditions are observed and complied with at all times.
DISK 7:RES02272
1
`_ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1. The applicant shall meet the requirements of all other City
Departments.
2. The applicant or his representative, shall sign a Statement
of Acceptance within fifteen i15) days frorn the date o£
approval of this Resolution by the Planning Commission.
S'igning this statement implies that applicant or his
representative has read, understands and agrees to the
conditions af this Resolut.ion.
3. All City of Lynwood Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance
requirements shall be met. '
.. PLANNING DZVISION
4. The total development will consist of one (1) one-story
residential unit, along with parking and other amenities.
6. A minimum of one (1) two-car gar�ge shall be provided.
7. A minimum of twenty-five percent (25$) of the lot shall be
landscaped and provided with an automatic irrigation system.
8. Street numbers for the new building unit shall be plainly
visible, shall be a minimum o£ four inches (4") in height and
contrasting.in color to the background.
9. All construction shall be performed by a licensed contractor.
10. A landscape plan shall be submitted and approved prior to
the issuance of building permits.
- 11. No principal,building on the site shall exceed a height of
. thirty-five (35') feet.
; 12. Construction shall be completed within six (6) months from
date of issuance of building permits.
13. The Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void if
compliance under the foregoing conditions does not commence
within ninety (90) days from the date on which the
Conditional Use Permit was granted.
14. A masonry wall six feet (6') in height shall be constructed
� along the perimeter of the property, except within the
twenty feet (20') front yard setback, which shall not exceed
four feet (4') in height. Construction of a fence in the
front yard set-back is optional (not required).
15. The existing property shall be cleaned and maintained in a
sanitary condition peiiding construction, and shall be
maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times.
Failure to comply may result in revocation of the
Conditional Use Permit.
' 16. Final building elevations, including materials of
construction, shall be submitted to and approved by the
Building Official prior to issuance of any building permits.
DISK 7:RES02272
2
17. Before any • building permits are issued, the
, applicant/developer shall pay $1.53 per square foot for
` residential buildings to the Lynwood Unified School
. District, pursuant to Government Code Section 53080.
• PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
18. Submit a drainage plan. �
19. Reconstruct damaged sidewalk. and curb along Duncan Avenue.
20. Submit a grading plan prepared and signed by a Yegistered
' Civil Engineer.
21. Connect to public sewer. Each building shall be connected
separately. Construct laterals as necessary.
22. Install one (1) twenty four (24") inch box street trees per
City of Lynwood standards along Duncan Avenue.
23. Underground all utilities.
24. A permit from the Engineering Division is required for all
off-site improvements.
25. Owner shall sign and record a covenant that he will enter
into mutual agreement for access with adjacent owners if -
city vacates the alley. (Contact Department of Public Works
for details).
FIRE DEPARTMENT
30. If security bars are placed on bedroom windows, at least one
window for each bedroom shall have quick release mechanisms
that does not require a key or any special knowledge.
U.B.C. Sec. 1204
31. Provide smoke detectors, (U.L. and State Fire Marshal
approved type.)
Section 3. A copy of Resolution No. 2272 shall be delivered
to the applicant.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this llth day of April, 1989, by members of
the Planning Commission voting as follows: ,
. AYES:
NOESc
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Donald A. Dove, Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Vicente L. Mas, Director pouglas D. Barnes
Community Development Dept. Deputy City Attorney
• DISK 41:RES02272
3
� f � MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
� PLANNING COMMISSION
.�:� CITY OF LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1989
" OPENING CEREMONIES `
" A. ' Call to order
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
Lynwood was called to order by Chairperson Dove on the above
captioned date at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City
Hall, 11330 Bullis Road, Lynwood, California 90262.
B. Pledge of Allegiance
Commissioner Willis led the Pledge of Allegiance.
C. Roll Call of Commissioners
Chairperson Dove requested the roll call, and Planning
Division Fenderson complied.
Present: Commissioner ponald Dove
Commissioner Lena Cole-Dennis
Commissioner Alberto M. Penalber
CommissioneT David J. Willis, Jr.
Mr. Fenderson informed the Commissioners that Commissioner Kanka
had requested an excused absence, Commissioner Haynes had
requested an excused absence because of an operation on his foot,
and Commissioner Pryar requested an excused absence because he is
out of town.
MOTION by Commissioner Penabler, SECONDED by Commissioner Willis,
to grant all three Commissioner an excused absence. MOTION carried
unanimously.
Also present: Douglas Barnes, Deputy City Attorney
Aubrey Fenderson, Planning Manager
Arthur Barfield, Planning Associate
Andrew B-Pessima, Planning Technician
Vicente L. Mas, Community Development Director
John Oskoui, Civil Engineering Assistant
Joy Valentine, Minutes Clerk
Approximately twenty-five people were in the audience.
: D. Gertification of Agenda Posting
Mr. Fenderson stated that, per the Brown Act, the agenda had
been duly posted.
E. Approval of Minutes
MOTION by Commissioner Penabler, SECONDED by Commissioner Willis,
to approve the minutes of January 1-0, 1989. MOTION carried by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Dove, Penabler, Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Haynes, Kanka, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
Disk 5: PG031489
1
.;
' MOTION by Commissioner Penabler, SECONDED by Commissioner
Willis, to approve the minutes of February 14, 1989.
, MOTION carried by the following vote: ,
AYES: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Dove, Penabler, Willis
NOES: None '
ABSENT: Commissioners Haynes, Kanka, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Sicxn Ordinance Amendment - Case No. 88100
Citywide
Staff proposes to amend Chapter 25, the official Zoning and
Siqn Ordinance, to control construction of free standing pole
signs Citywide. This matter was continued from the February
14, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to allow staff more time
for evaluation. At the December 20, 1988, meeting of the City
Council, an urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on the
construction, erection and installation of free standing signs
was adopted.
� Vice-Chairperson Dove discussed the City of South Gate's
design requirements as indicated on the survey page. Mr.
Fenderson reminded the Commissioners of a previous case
involving World Savings and Loan and McDonald's. Mr. Fenderson
stated that on premises freestanding signs would be illegal
per this ordinance.
Vice-Chairperson Dove opened the Public Hearing. There being
no one wishing to speak in favor or in opposition to the
proposed ordinance amendment, Vice-Chairperson Dove closed the
Public Hearing.
Commissioner Cole-Dennis complimented staff on their report
and stated her approval. Vice-Chairperson Dove also stated his
approval.
MOTION made by Commissioner Cole-Dennis to adopt Resolution
No. 2254, finding that Sign Ordinance Amendment, Case No.
88100, will not have a significant effect on the environment,
certifying the Negative Declaration as adeguate, recommending
that the City Council approve the findings in Resolution No.
2254, waive the reading and introduce the proposed ordinance,
SECONDED by Commissioner Willis.
MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Dove, Penabler, Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Haynes, Kanka, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
' 2. Zonina Ordinance Amendment Case No. 1
Citywide
Staff proposes to amend Chapter 25, the official Zoning
Ordinance, with respect to parking standards Citywide.
Disk 5:PCO31489
2
Mr. Fenderson requested that this case be continued to the
' next regularly scheduled meeting to the Planning Commission on
April 11, 1989, because staff has not come to a final draft.
• MOTION by Commissioner Penabler,SECONDED by Commissioner Cole-
Dennis, to continue 2oning Ordinance Amendment Case No. 1 to
the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission on April 11 1989.
MOTION carried by the following vote:
' AYES: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Dove, Penalber, Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Haynes, Kanka, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
3. Zonina Ordinance Amendment Case No. 2 Regulating Property
Maintence Citywide
Staff proposes to amend Chapter 25, the official Zoning and
Ordinance, with respect to Nuisance and Property Maintenance
Citywide.
Mr. Fenderson requested that Zoning Ordinance Amendment Case
No. 2 be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of
the Planning Commission on April 11, 1989, SECONDED by
Commissioner Cole-Dennis.
MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Dove, Penalber, Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Haynes, Kanka, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
4. Modification to Conditional Use Permit - Case No. 85075 (CUP 1)
11331 Wright Road, Lynwood (Jose L. Lopez)
Applicant requests approval of a modification to Conditional
Use Permit No. 85075 in order to build an additional one-story
two-bedroom unit in the R-3 zone at above address.
Applicant has not resubmitted another plan to address the
problems discussed previously with staff and the
Commissioners. Therefore, staff requests that this item be
continued to the Planning Commission's regularly scheduled
meeting of April 11, 1989.
MOTION by Commissioner Penabler, SECONDED by Commissioner
Willis, to continue Modification to Conditional Use Permit -
Case No. 85075, to the Planning Commission's regularly
scheduled meeting of April 11, 1989.
MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Dove, Penalber, Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Haynes, Kanka, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
Disk S:PCO31489
3
� 5. Conditional Use Permit - Case No. 5
11004 Harris Avenue, Lynwood (Sergio Lopez)
• Applicant requests approval to build four apartment units in
the R-3 zone.
Two parties, the applicant and an alleged new owner, both
claim ownership of the property. Neither has proven his case '
to satisfaction of staff so the applicant, Mr. Sergio Lopez,
has requested that Co�ditional Use Permit - Case No. 5 be
continued to the Planning Commission's next regularly
scheduled meeting on April 11, 1989.
MOTION by Commissioner Penalber, SECONDED by Commissioner
Cole-Dennis, to continue Conditional Use Permit - Case No. 5
to the Planning Commission's next regularly scheduled meeting
on April, 1989.
MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Dove, Penalber, Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Aaynes, Kanka, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
At this point, staff requested that the Commissioners hear
Agenda Item No. 8 because citizens involved in that case work
evenings and will have to leave soon.
6. Conditional Use Permit - Case No. 8
10404 Long Beach Boulevard (Yi Chin Su)
Mr. B-Pessima noted that the population of the City of Lynwood
is 54,000 and at this time 97 liquor licenses have been issued.
This averages to 18 liquor stores in every square mile of
Lynwood. It is the opinion of staff that granting this CUP will
adversely affect the community. The Site Plan Review Committee
recommended that the Planning Commission deny the permit. Mr. B-
Pessima also noted that presently there are twelve
establishments in the general area of the subject site selling
liquor. He distributed a letter of appeal received from the
applicant to the Commissioners.
Vice-Chairperson Dove opened the Public Hearing and Rod Archer
representative of CLR Enterprises, Inc. 3540 wilshire
Boulevard, Suite 603, Los Angeles, California, 90010, rose to
speak in favor of the project for his client, Mr. Yi.
Mr. Archer stated that Mr. Yi had been in business in that
same spot for six years without a single problem. Mr. Yi was
forced to surrender use of his beer and wine license in August
1987, because the owner of the property decided to redevelop
the site. Mr. Yi fully intended to reopen his market upon
completion of the redevelopment, but the developer did nothing
to protect the C.U.P. Mr. Archer, stated that extremely
extenuating circumstances surround this application, which
should be dealt with equitably and fairly. Mr. Yi should have
had his license qrandfathered into the redevelopment by the
developer, but somehow, perhaps due to language barriers, this
was not done. Mr. Archer reiterated that this is not a new
license.
Disk S:PCO31489
4
An extensive discussion ensued. Mr. Mas stated that when
physical surroundings are changed, a new C.U.P. must be
obtained. Mr. Fenderson stated that existing City policy is to
eliminate stores selling liquor when possible because of the
present proliferation of stores selling liqour within City
limits. Mr. Archer insisted that the issuance of a C.U.P. is
a discretionary action and this particular case requires -
equity and fairness. Vice-Chairperson Dove asked if there
aren't special arrangements for malls. Mr. Mas replied yes,
but only in malls of five acres or more.
Mrs. Suzie Woo, 831 Fifth Avenue, Los Angeles, rose to state
that this is her brother's business and she worked there
previously. Mr. Yi lived in front of the store and kept
constant watch over it, he cleaned graffiti and maintained
lower prices. His only problem was language, she stated.
Delbert Robertson, 3202 Tenaya, Lynwood, stated he is a
property owner since 1973 and there were no problems of any
kind during the six years Mr. Yi operated the market.
Esau Morales, 3275 Tenaya, Lynwood, stated Mr. Yi was a good
market operator who kept everything clean.
Westa Morales, 3275 Tenaya, Lynwood, stated Mr. Yi had a clean
market with no problems.
There being no one else wishing to speak in favor of the
proposal, Vice-Chairperson Dove asked if anyone wished to
speak against the proposal.
Jane Semone, 3153 Sequoia Street, on the South Gate/Lynwood
border, stated she lived in the neighborhood for 23 years and
conditions have changed since there was only a market at that
location. Now there is a hamburger stand, a laundromat, and
other facilities. Beer and wine sales will cause problems at
those adjoining businesses, she stated.
Mr. Archer returned to �the podium to restate essentially what
he had said before.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice-Chairperson
Dove closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Mas stated that Mr. Yi had to surrender his license
because he had no place of business. Mr. Archer restated that
Mr. Yi had surrendered his license voluntarily because he
intended to reopen his market when the remodeling was
finished.
Commissioner Penalber stated he couldn't understand why Mr. Yi
didn't check into this matter before he signed a lease.
Mr. Fenderson stated he couldn't understand why Mr. Yi wasn't
as diligent with the City of Lynwood as he was with the ABC
District.
Mr. Archer said it is unfair to speculate on why Mr. Yi didn't
come to the City, the important thing is that he surrendered
his license with the intent of reopening. He simply didn't
understand that he would have to so anything other than
reapply with the ABC District.
Disk S:PCO31489
5
Vice-Chairperson Dove stated that this is not an easy case for
.. him to decide one way or another since he can see both the
hardship for Mr. Yi and yet he wants to stop proliferation of
, business selling liquor. Commissioner Penalber stated that he
3s in the same position. Vice-Chairperson Dove asked staff if
Mr. Yi could use the license in another location and Mr. Mas
replied in the affirmative. .
Commissioner Willis stated that his contituency is opposed to
proliferation of businesses selling Ziquor and besides, it is
contrary to City policy to be in conflict with zoning rules.
Commissioner Cole-Dennis asked staff if ABC contacts the City
when someone surrenders a license and Mr. Fenderson replied in
the negative.
Mr. Archer came to the podium to restate his case one more
time, this time adding that staff should have informed both
the applicant and the developer what the procedures are.
Commissioner Willis stated it was the developer's
responsibility to see that the C.U.P. was protected. Mr.
Fenderson agreed, statinq that the developer did not follow
through on his responsibilities.
Mr. Barnes stated that the issue is not who should have done
what, the issue is that the City is against proliferation of
liquor stores. He added that Mr. Archer has not claimed that
� Mr. Yi will suffer great hardship and also has not explained
why Mr. Yi will suffer great hardship and also has not
explained why Mr. Yi delayed in requesting the C.U.P.
Commissioner Willis asked Mr. Archer if Mr. Yi would suffer
great hardship because the bulk of his sales are beer and wine
sales. Mr. Archer replied that the bulk of Mr. Yi sales are
not beer and wine, but that community members support the
market as shown by the people present at the meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Penabler, SECONDED by Commissioner
Willis, to deny the request for Conditional Use Permit - Case
No. 8, finding that the C.U.P. request falls short of
Ordinance No. 1306 and denying the C.U.P. as it will adversely
affect the City's General Plan.
MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Dove, Penalber, Willis
NOES: Commissioner Cole-Dennis
ABSENT: Commissioners Aaynes, Kanka, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
Vice-Chairperson Dove told Mr. Archer that he can appeal the
decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council.
The Commissioners took a two-minute break, after which
Commissioners and staff returned.
- 7. Conditional Use Permit - Case No. 6
- 3620 Carlin Avenue (Emigdio Carillio)
Applicant requests approval to develop a two-story, four-
bedroom house in the R-2 zone, presently develaped with one
single-£amily residence and an attached single-car garage.
Also on site is a mobile home trailer.
Disk 5:PCO31489
6
. '
Vice-Chairperson Dove opened the Public Hearing.
• Emigdio Carillio, 9420 S. Madison Avenue, South Gate, 90280,
-• rose to speak but, since he spoke only Spanish, Mr. Mas acted
as interpreter. He accepted all conditions required for
approval.
� Rosa Rios, 3620 Carlin Avenue, owner of the property, rose to
state she doesn't want to have to plant trees because tbere is
a school nearby and it might be dangerous..
John Oskoui stated it will sa€e; an�inspector will go onsite
and if there is any danger at that time, the trees will be
eliminated_
There being no one else wishing to speak for the proposal,
- Vice=Chairperson Dove asked if anyone wished to speak against
the proposal.
Irene Weatherbee, who lives at 2317 W. Carlin and owns the
� property at� 124-25 Bullis Road, rose to state that this
property is adjacent to hers. It is a nice, quiet neighborhood
with no two-story buildings. If the applicant is permitted to
build a two-story building, her view will be blocked from the
bath'room and the bedroom. The new owners removed their trees
and tore down the chain link fence that divided the two
properties. Their dogs run all over her property although the
new owners have now erected an eight (8) foot wooden fence
that was not erected properly.
Mr. Mas stated that one condition of approval is a 6' masonry
wall fence so the wooden fence would have to come down anyway.
Mrs. Weatherbee again stated her objections to the two-story
building, the absence of the chain link fence, the doqs and
the trailer. Mr. Barfield stated the trailer will be removed,
this has been agreed between staff and the owner.
Mr. Mas stated the trailer is a Code Enforcement violation and
- a Code Enforcement officer will be onsite tomorrow.
Mrs. Weatherbee stated she has seen three different dogs, both
� their barking and their messes are offensive. She said the
two-story building will cut off all breezes.
Mr. Barfield stated that there is an existing two-story
building across the street at the Bullis/Carlin intersection.
Mrs. Weatherbee replied that there is an alleyway.next to that
building, not a home.
The applicant returned to the podium to state that there was a
female dog who had puppies are all gone now and there is only
one dog, about 2-foot high, who stays inside the existing
front house. When the bushes and trees were removed, she
stated, "the chain link fence came with them," and she plans
to build a masonry fence.
Commissioner Cole-Dennis asked if she planned to live in the
new four-bedroom house and the applicant replied in the
affirmative.
There being no one else wishing to speak for or against the
proposal, Vice-Chairperson Dove closed the Public Hearing.
Disk S:PCO31489
7
' - Vice-Chairperson Dove discussed Item Nos. 11, 14, 15 and 18
with staff and stated he doesn't see a view problem.
• MOTION by Commissioner Penabler, SECONDED by Commissioner
Cole-Dennis, to adopt Resolution No.' 2260, "A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 6 TO CONSTRUCT ONE FOUR-BEDROOM,
TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE R-2 ZONE, 3620 CARLIN
AVENUE, LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA, 90262," finding the project to be
categorically exempt from the State CSQA Guidelines as amended
by Section 15061 bf3) and approving C.U.F. No. 6 subject to
the stated conditions and requirements.
MOTION carried by the following vote;
AYES: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Dove, Penalber, Willis
- NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Haynes, Kanka, Pryor
, ABSTAIN: None
8. Conditional Use Permit - Case No. 7
3592 Los Flores Boulevard (Marcos and Guadalupe Arellano)
Applicant requests approval to develop a two-story, two-
bedr000m detached dwelling unit in the R-3 zone.
Vice-Chairperson Dove opened the Public Hearing and William
Flores, 2513-1/2 California Avenue, Huntington Park, rose to
state the request was for a three-bedroom unit not a two-
bedroom unit. He stated that the owner accepted all
conditions.
There being no one else wishing to speak either for or against
� the proposal, Vice-Chairperson Dove closed the Public Hearing.
- There was a short discussion between Mr. Barnes, Mr. Barfield,
Vice-Chairperson Dove and Mr. Flores concerning the front
treatment of the existing building and it was agreed by all
� that Condition No. 15A requiring that the front of the
present house will be made to complement the front of the new
� house, will be added to the required conditions.
MOTION by Commissioner Cole-Dennis, SECONDED by Commissioner
Penabler, to adopt Resolution No. 2266, "A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING
CONDITZONAL USE PERMIT NO. 7 TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-BEDROOM,
TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE r-3 RESIDENTIAL 20NE, AT
3592 LOS FLORES BOULEVARD, LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA, 90262,"
finding that the project is categorically exempt from the
, provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines as amended by Section
15061 b{3) and approving.C.U.P. No. 7 subject to the stated
conditions and requirements.
' MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Dove, Penabler, Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Haynes, Kanka, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
Disk S:PCO3E489
8
9. Variance - Case No: 1
' 10992 Pine Avenue (Lawrence R. and Brenda J. Bible)
Applicants request a variance for a five-foot high wrought
• iron fence along the front yard setback of their property in
the R-1 zone. Staff recommends denial because a hardship has
not been established and the applicant will not be deprived of
, privileges enjoyed by-owners of other properties in the same
vicinity if the var-iance is denied. •
Mr. Fenderson informed the Commissioners that staff had
received a letter of suppart fram their neighbors.
Vice-Chairperson Dove opened the Public Hearing.
Brenda Bible, 10992 Pine Avenue, Lynwood, rose to state the
fence has been up since June 1988. Her home is next to a bus
stop at the intersection of Imperial Highway and Pine Avenue.
She stated her problems stem from children from the nearby
Seventh Day Adventi.st's School who are waiting for the bus, as
well as other bus riders. Her front yard has been used as a
� dump for everything from a dead dog in a plastic bag to old
tires. The children have climbed trees in her front yard, torn .
up her flower beds and written on her porch. She has come home
on hot days and found people sitting under the trees on her
front yard because of the cooling shade. She used to have a 4'
fence that could be climbed easily and one foot higher made ,
all the difference. She stated her neighbor on the corner of
Pendleton has the same height and type of fence, which is a
combination of wrought iron and masonry. The presence of
fences gives symetrical balance to the block. She stated she
didn't know she.needed a permit and the builder never said
anything about it. Her neighbors have complimented her on the
attactive fence.
There being no else wishing to speak for or against the
variance Vice-Chairperson Dove closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Barnes checked with staff to make sure the materials are
not illeqal, only the height of the fence and Mr. Fenderson
_ replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Cole-Dennis stated she has often wondered who
lives there and asked if a trash can is located nearby. Mrs.
Bible said that there is no trash can, she tries to keep the
area cleaned up herself.
Commissioner Willis stated he understands the problem as he
� also lives on a corner lot and, also, Vice-Chairperson Dove,
who once lived on a corner lot.
Both Commissioners Penalber and Dove suqgested Mrs. Bible
might turn on a sprinkler from 2:30 to 6:00 p.m., using a`
timer. Vice-Chairperson Dove asked staff for a textbook
solution.
Mr. Fenderson suggested a barrier such as a hedge. Mrs. Bible
replied she had previously tried a hedge and the people beat
it down.
Commissioner Cole-Dennis stated her approval of a variance
permitting the fence to stay there.
Vice-Chairperson Dove asked if the City could get a bus
shelter, would that solve the problem. -
Mrs. Bible said it probably wouldn't help, t2ae children would
get tired of sitting down and would still wreck her yard.
Disk S:PCO31489
9
Mr. Oskoui stated that bus shelters have been installed by the
Public Works Department, mostly in commercial areas, such as
. where Zody's used to be, and the southwest corner of Atlantic.
He doesn't foresee any bus shelter construction in the very
near future.
MOTION by Commissioner Cole-Dennis, SECONDED by Commissioner '
Penabler, to approve Variance Case No. 1, finding that a
- hardship has been established and that the other properties in
the same vicinity if the recommendation of denial is upheld.
MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Penalber
NOES: Commissioners Dove, Willis �
ABSENT: Commissioners Haynes, Kanka, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
Because of the tie, Mr. Barnes stated that the case would be
automatically brought back before the Planning Commission at
its regularly scheduled meeting of April 11, 1989, in hopes
that a fifth commissioner would be present.
Mr. Mas commented that the fence at 10909 Pine was built
previous to the ban of six years ago and was grandfathered in
as non-conforming. He also begged the Commission's indulgence
to permit him to leave, which he did.
10. Varinace Case No. 2
10971 San Vicente Avenue (Ceneyda Reyes)
Applicant requests variance to provide only three attached
one-car garages to serve three residential units in the R-3
zone. Subject property is a substandard lot with three legal
dwelling units. Only three one-car garages have been provided
since 1959. The three units do not meet the standard
requirements of the City's current zoning requirements of the
City's current zoning code with respect to parking and yard
setbacks. Applicant proposes to enclose an existing porch,
remodel the living room, kitchen and bath of the single family
house. Site Plan Review Committee recommend denial of the
proposed project, however, applicant has submitted documents
to substantiate his argument about the legality of the three
dwelling units.
Vice-Chairperson Dove opened the Public Hearing and Sandra
Stream, a representative of Dunhill Builders, 9585 Slauson
Avenue, Pico Rivera, rose to state that they plan to do the
remodeling on the single family dwelling.
Mr. Fenderson stated the variance request is for parking only,
and has nathing to do with any of the building or remodeling
thereof.
Commissioner Willis suggested that the proposal be continued
until the next regularly scheduled meetinq of the Planning
Commission on April 11, 1989.
Mr. B-Pessima commented that the applicant cannot expand the
building because of its legal non-conforming status. Mr.
Fenderson agreed with Commissioner Willis that it would be a
.good idea to continued the proposal until the April meeting.
Disk 5:PCO31489 .
10
MOTION by Commissioner Cole-Dennis, SECONDED by Commissioner
' Penabler, to table Variance Case No. . 2 to the next regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on April 11,
1989.
MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Dove, Penabler,,Willis
NOES: None
, ABSENT: Commissioners Haynes, Kanka, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
11. Tentative Parcel Map No. 20792 - Case TPM 3
4440 Olanda Avenue (Nathaniel Roberson)
- Applicant requests approval to consolidate one and three
quarters of parcels into a single parcel in the R-3 zone.
Vice-Chairperson Dove opened the Public Hearing and Nathaniel
' Roberson, 19202 Bichard, Cerritos, rose to state he hopes the
application will be approved, because he wants to start
. construction next week.
Mr. Oskoui stated that no permits will be issued before the
recordation of the parcel map. Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Fenderson
to explain and Mr. Oskoui again said that no permits will be
issued before the parcel map recordation. Mr. Barnes stated
that will take some time and Mr. Fenderson then said said
staff will enter into a covenant agreement as has been done in
the past. �
Mr. Fenderson stated the Public Hearing is for the parcel mao
:. only, the project has already been approved as far as building
goes, but the parcel map had somehow been missed.
There being no one wishing to speak either in favor or in
opposition to the proposal, Vice-Chairperson Dove closed the
Public Hearing.
� MOTION by Commissioner Penabler, SECONDED by Commissioner
Cole-Dennis, to adopt Resolution No. 2269, "A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20792 TO COMBINE A SUBDIVISION OF LOT
6 AND PORTIONS OF LOT 15 , TRACT NO. 7099, AS RECORDED IN BOOK
1-01, PAGES 6 AND 7 OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, KNOWN AS 4440 OLANDA AVENUE, LYNWOOD,
CALIFORNIA," finding that it will not have a significant
effect on the environment, and certifying the Negative
Declaration as adequate, subject to stated conditions and
requirements.
MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Dove, Penabler, Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Haynes, Kanka, Pryor
' ABSTAIN: None
Mr. B-Pessima left the meeting.
Disk 5:PCO31489
11
12. Tentative Parcel Map No. 207902 - Case No. TPM 43
Norhteast corner of Bullis Road and Century Boulevard
(George Polycrates)
Applicant requests approval in order to consolidate five
parcels and a portion of another into a single parcel.
Mr. Fenderson stated Condition No. 4, "No grading permit or
building permit shall be issued prior to recordation of final
map or another appropriate instrument approved by the City,
with the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder," should
have been deleted,
- Vice-Chairperson Dove asked if the present structure will be
demolished and Mr. Barfield stated that a new development is
proposed, however, the Commission is asked to act only on the
parcel map at this time.
Vice-Chairperson Dove opened the Public Hearing and Rick
Dougherty, a representative of George Polyqrates, 137 S.
Prospect, Tustin, rose to state their acceptance of all
conditions except Condition No. 4.
There being no one wishing to speak either in favor or in
opposition to the proposal, Vice-Chairperson Dove closed the
Public Hearing.
Mr. Barnes questioned the wisdom of dropping Condition No. 4
and both Mr. Barfield and Mr: Fenderson stated that staff will
work with the developer closely.
- MOTION by Commissioner Cole-Dennis, SECONDED by Commissioner
Penabler, to adopt Resolution No. 2270, "A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING CONIINISSION OF THE CITY LYNWOOD APPROVING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 20790 TO COMBINE LOT 281 EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 23
FEET, SIX INCHES THEREOF LOTS 282 THROUGH 286, INCLUSIVE, OF
TRACT NO. 15016, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 315, PAGES 40 TO
45 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY," finding it will not have a significant effect
on on the environment and is therefore exempt, subject to the
stated conditions and requirements.
' MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Dove, Penalber, Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Haynes, Kanka, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS I
There was none. I
i
STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Fenderson distributed copies of a memorandum concerning the
General Plan Update and announcement of a City Council Workshop to
Identify Goals and Objectives of same, to be held on Monday, March 20,
1989, from noon to 2:00 p.m., in Room No. 2 at Bateman Hall, to the
Commissioners.
Disk S:PCO31489 �
12
COMMISSION ORALS:
PUBLIC ORALS-
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION was made to adjourn by Commission Penabler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Cole-Dennis, and carried unanimously. The meeting
adjourried at 10:40 p.m.
APPROVED AS WRITTEN this 14th day of March, 1989.
Donald D, Dove, Chairperson
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
' Aubrey D. Fenderson, Manager pouglas D. Barnes
Planning Department Deputy City Attorney
E
�
;
Disk 5:PCO31489
13