HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 2005/02/22 - Regular"
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
M I N U T E S
F E B R U A R Y 2 2 , 2 0 0 5
I N I T I A T I O N :
1 .
C A L L T O O R D E R
P u r s u a n t t o t h e A g e n d a p o s t e d F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , C h a i r m a n G r i f f i t h s c a l l e d
t h e m e e t i n g o f t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n t o o r d e r a t 7 : 3 0 p . m . o n T u e s d a y ,
F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 .
2 . P L E D G E O F A L L E G I A N C E T O T H E F L A G
3 . R O L L C A L L
P r e s e n t :
A b s e n t :
C o m m i s s i o n e r s : L e B e r t h o n , Y u , S e i b e r t , G r i f f i t h s
C o m m i s s i o n e r : B l u m
A l s o P r e s e n t : C i t y A t t o r n e y M a r t i n , C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D i r e c t o r
D a w s o n a n d A s s i s t a n t P l a n n e r G u l i c k
4 . T I M E F O R T H O S E I N T H E A U D I E N C E W H O W I S H T O S P E A K
" 5 . C O N S E N T C A L E N D A R :
A . A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S F e b r u a r y 8 , 2 0 0 5
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : A P P R O V E A S S U B M I T T E D
C h a i r m a n G r i f f i t h s M a d e t w o c o r r e c t i o n s t o t h e M i n u t e s o f F e b r u a r y 8 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e f i r s t
c h a n g e i s t h a t o n p a g e 1 1 a b o u t 2 / 3 r d s d o w n t h e p a g e i t r e a d " s u b d i v i s i o n m a y " a n d
s h o u l d r e a d " s u b d i v i s i o n m a p " . T h e s e c o n d c h a n g e i s t h a t o n p a g e 1 3 t h e m i n u t e s
s t a t e t h a t C h a i r m a n G r i f f i t h s m a d e a m o t i o n b u t i t s h o u l d r e a d t h a t C o m m i s s i o n e r
S e i b e r t m a d e t h e m o t i o n .
C o m m i s s i o n e r S e i b e r t M a d e a m o t i o n t o a p p r o v e t h e m i n u t e s o f F e b r u a r y 8 , 2 0 0 5 , a s
c o r r e c t e d , s e c o n d e d b y C o m m i s s i o n e r Y u a n d u n a n i m o u s l y c a r r i e d .
6 . U N F I N I S H E D B U S I N E S S : N o n e
"
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 2
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. PUBLIC HEARING:
THE MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A BEAUTY COLLEGE IN A 8,840 SQUARE FOOT
BUILDING LOCATED AT 10229 LOWER AZUSA ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MODIFICATION
TO REMOVE A CONDITION THAT REQUIRES A
PARKING COVENANT FOR 25 PARKING SPACES AT
THE MEI -HSING TEMPLE ADDRESSED AT 10213
LOWER AZUSA ROAD. THE SUBJECT SITE IS ZONED
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C -2) AND IS DESIGNATED
AS COMMERCIAL ON THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE MAP.
SITE: 10229 LOWER AZUSA ROAD
CASE NO.: MODIFICATION OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04 -1584
PROPERTY OWNER: UNITED BEAUTY COLLEGE, INC
9324 E. GARVEY AVENUE, SUITE N
SOUTH EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 91733
APPLICANT:
LAW OFFICES OF
SCOTT A. YANG
21700 OXNARD ST., SUITE 430
WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367
RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT
2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
3) CONFIRM STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION
TO REQUIRE A FOCUSED E.I.R.
Director Dawson - Read the Staff Report dated February 22, 2005.
Assistant Planner Gulick- Narrarated and showed the presentation.
Commissioner I e Berthon - Asked how many parking spaces there are on site. Stated
that they looked rather small and asked if there was any kind of size limitation on the
size of the parking space.
Director Dawson — Stated that there were 22 parking spaces on site. Stated that the
minimum space for new construction is 9 feet wide and 20 feet long. Stated that these
parking spaces may not meet the current minimum standard.
Commissioner Yu — Stated that Director Dawson has suggested preparing an E.I.R.
with focused mitigation measures. Stated that with a shortfall of 44 parking spaces,
would any mitigation measures be really sufficient to bridge the gap of 44 parking
spaces.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 3
•Director Dawson - Stated that a focused EIR would look at possible mitigation
measures and one of the mitigation measures would be some kind of restriction on
parking in the nearby residential neighborhoods. Basically, what you do is restrict
parking in the residential neighborhoods to residents only and that becomes a big
enforcement problem
Commissioner Seibert - Asked if there was any way to require a bond and if so, how do
you govern and /or enforce it. Would it be on a complaint basis?
City Attorney Martin — Stated that bonds are very difficult because you have to describe
in the bond what you wish the bonding company to guarantee. What would the
guarantee be? In addition, bonds are usually enforced from year to year and they
expire and need to be continued year after year,
Commissioner I e Berthon — Asked what the function of the Planning Commission was
tonight.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that the function was to hear the arguments pro and con
about removing the condition requiring the parking covenant. Asked if there were any
other questions. Opened the public hearing.
Scott Yang — Stated that he was representing United Beauty College. Stated that he
wanted to address a few issues brought up by the Staff. The initial parking agreement
• made with the Temple was a courtesy and at the last hearing his understanding was
that he did not think that the Temple would be in agreement with recording a covenant.
Stated that at that point, he did not believe that was a condition of the Conditional Use
Permit. Stated that the traffic and parking study told them what they already knew; that
they were short of parking. Stated that he felt that there have been many obstacles for
this project.
Director Dawson - Asked about the parking agreement dated October 16, 2004. Stated
that on September 14, 2004, the Temple had a membership meeting and voted not to
provide any parking to United Beauty College.
Scott Yang — Stated that what happens internally in their organization is unknown but
when Master P. Yang showed him that he had authority to initiate that lease, he did not
question it. Stated that he cannot comment on what happened within the organization
of the Temple. Stated that he did not intend to try to lie to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Griffiths, — Stated that he did not believe that was the issue. Asked how
many students he anticipated having during the day.
Scott Yang — Stated that it would be 75 and that they would not all be driving
Commissioner Yu — Asked about the students parking in the El Monte Bus terminal
• and that by reading the information he does not see anything allowing them to park
there.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 4
Scott Yang — Stated that all students would be forced to park there. Stated that the
parking lot is also for the purpose of vanpools.
Commissioner Yu - Asked if there was some documentation from MTA stating that it is
permissible.
Scott Yang — Stated that he would be able to get that.
Commissioner Seibert — Asked if any improvements have been done to the building.
& tt Yang — Stated that the bushes have been trimmed but that they have not done
any improvements yet.
Chairman Griffiths — Asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of the application.
Cathe Wilson — Stated that there is not enough parking in all of Temple City and that
there are many businesses that share parking lots. Stated that this family has been trying
very hard to establish a business in Temple City and that she finds it hard to understand
why he is having so much trouble. Stated that she understands why the Temple
hesitated in signing a Covenant. Stated that the City will benefit from having this old
building occupied and the City would also benefit from the tax revenue. Stated that
Temple City has many schools and that the City is not monitoring their parking situation.
Stated that she feels the applicant has tried to satisfy the City's requirements and that he
has spent a lot of money trying to open. Stated that she would like to see this business
open and is in support of the modification.
Chairman Griffith s — Asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor or against the
application.
Commissioner Seibert - Made a motion to close the Public Hearing, seconded by
Commissioner Yu and unanimously carried.
Chairman Griffiths - Closed the Public Hearing and began discussion.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that he is not in favor of an EIR because we already
know that there is insufficient parking. Stated that there has already been money spent
on a traffic study. There is a problem with that parcel itself and no matter what business
goes in, the parking will be insufficient, and that the building should not have to remain
vacant and should be utilized and improved. He is not in favor of granting variances but
in this case he feels that an exception should be made.
Commissioner Yu — Stated that he agreed with Commissioner Seibert and that the
granting of the C.U.P. should be subject to the applicant proving that he has obtained
permission from the MTA for his students to park there. Stated that he felt the operator of
a school had the ability to control the parking situation more than a retail use. Stated that
he is in favor of granting the modification for the Conditional Use Permit.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 5
• Commissioner I e_ Berthon - Stated that he concurred with the other Commissioners.
Stated that he agreed with Commissioner Yu with regard to the stipulation about parking
availability but is not sure if the MTA would issue anything.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that there are some problems that he feels need to be
addressed. Stated that he did not see a condition that would give the City the means to
revoke this C.U.P. and make them move out if the parking arrangement fails. Stated that
there are some drawbacks that have not been addressed and that Commissioner Yu's
suggestion about getting something more definite from the MTA about use of the parking
lot would be helpful. Stated that he is not against grating the modification but does not
feel that the City is protecting the community because no workable plan has been
submitted.
City Attorney Martin — Stated that it would be fairly easy to get an agreement or
understanding regarding the MTA lot. Stated that the problem is what happens if the
people do not want to go to the MTA lot and take the shuttle and chose instead to park in
the residential area and walk.
Commissioner Seihert — Stated that maybe we could do something based upon the
number of complaints.
City Attorney Martin - Stated that was a difficult thing to enforce and might not be
• sustained by the courts.
Chairman Griffith s — Stated that was one of the problems.
Commissioner Yu — Stated that with the real estate market the way it is, it would be
difficult to get any tenant at that location.
City Attorney Martin — Stated that this is the first proposal that we have had on that
property in four years and either the City takes it or waits for something better.
Commissioner Seibert — Made a motion to approve the modification of Conditional Use
Permit 04 -1584 with the conditions as described below, seconded by Commissioner Yu.
City Attorney Martin — Stated that condition number 1 will be modified to eliminate the
Temple parking requirement entirely and the first clause of section nine will be deleted to
accomplish that. The shuttle provision will be amplified to require that prior to the
resolution becoming effective, confirmation from MTA shall be provided to indicate that
the lot will serve van pools and will also serve parking of vehicles for the van pool. The
remaining proposition in number 9, that he is to use his best effort to keep the people off
the residential streets and the commission can consider revocation if that gets to be a
public nuisance, will remain in.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 6
Roll call vote
Commissioner Yu -Yes to approve
Commissioner Seibert - Yes to approve
Commissioner Le Berthon — Yes to approve
Chairman Griffiths — No for approve
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that the motion to approve the modification of the Conditional
Use Permit carried on a 3 to 1 vote. Stated that there is a 15 -day appeal /review period to
the City Council.
B. PUBLIC HEARING: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR
BUSINESS AS A SEPARATE BUSINESS
ENTERPRISE WITHIN THE EXISTING K -MART
STORE. THE AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS WILL BE
OPERATING UNDER THE NAME OF PURRFECT
AUTO. THE K -MART STORE IS ADDRESSED AT
5665 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND IS SITUATED
IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C -2) ZONE AND
THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL (C -3) ZONE.
SITE: 5665 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -1605
PROPERTY OWNER: GRAZIADIO INVESTMENT COMPANY
2355 CRENSHAW BOULEVARD, #148
TORRENCE, CALIFORNIA 90501
APPLICANT:
NOUR MARWAN FAKHOURY
5665 N. ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780
RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT
2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
3) NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4) ADOPT RESOLUTION
Director Dawson - Read the Staff Report dated February 22, 2005.
Assistant Planner Gulick- Narrarated and showed the presentation.
Commissioner Le Berthon — Asked if that portion of K -Mart has been used as an auto
repair use in the past.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 7
• Director Dawson — Stated that it has.
•
•
Commissioner Seibert — Asked how different this use was from Pep Boys down the street
and if it was Tight repair just like Pep Boys.
Director Dawson — Stated that it was comparable to Pep Boys.
Commissioner Yu — Stated that it was also comparable to EZ Lube across the street and
that EZ Lube had a storefront and had parking in the rear. Stated that the service bays at
EZ Lube are visible from Rosemead Blvd.
A discussion was had as to the separate parking area and if it was owned by K -Mart or
public parking. There were indications on the map to describe which areas of the parking
lot were owned by K -Mart and which area was part of the public lot.
Chairman Griffiths — Opened the Public Hearing and asked the Applicant to speak.
...•
1;
.I 11 1
— Stated that he was representing the Applicant. At this
point, he walked over to the projector and indicated some parking areas that were subject
to the lease between Purrfect Auto and K -Mart and which areas were the City parking lot.
Stated that there is a four -foot wall that covers the bays from the street. Stated that the
street elevation is higher than the subject area and that aesthetically it would not be a
problem. Stated that he disagreed with the Staffs recommendation of denial for the
Conditional Use Permit. Stated that the project met with the findings necessary to grant a
Conditional Use Permit. He proceeded to read them and stated that the project met all of
the required findings. Stated that Purrfect Auto was a well -known franchise and that it
would abide by all of the local as well as State regulations. Stated that only Tight repair
work as described in the application would be conducted at this location
Commissioner Seibert — Asked if they were going to be doing the same kind of repairs as
Pep Boys.
Kal Fakhoury, 1038 Canyon Dr — Stated that it was the same type and the only thing
different is the name.
City Attorney Martin — Asked if there was going to be any substantial change from what K-
Mart was doing.
Kal Fakhoury, 1038 Canyon Dr.- Stated that the only change is the name; they are going
to be doing very minor repair work, no engine overhauls, no transmission jobs.
Commissioner Seibert — Asked if the vehicles were going to be in and out within the same
day.
Kal Fakhoury, 1038 Canyon Dr — Stated that the average car was going to be there
between 60 to 90 minutes at the most and it is not an overnight storage area.
Director Dawson — Asked about the intended signage.
N: \Word\Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 8
Kal Fakhoury, 1038 Canyon Dr — Stated that it would comply with the current City Codes
and new signage would be on the building. Stated that all permits would be obtained.
Commissioner Yu — Asked if vehicles that had to be kept overnight would be stored
inside.
Kal Fakhoury, 1038 Canyon Dr — Stated that was correct.
City Attorney Martin - Asked if there was any change to the ingress and egress to the
facility.
Kal Fakhoury, 1038 Canyon Dr — Stated that there was not.
Director Dawson — Asked if there should be a condition of approval that states if K -Mart
closes it doors, then Purrfect Auto would also have to close.
Kal Fakhoury, 1038 Canyon Dr. — Stated that K -Mart just bought Sears a few months ago
and he did not feel that they would go out of business and if that were a condition, he
would not have a problem with that. Stated that this issue is covered in the master lease.
Chairman Griffiths — Asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor or in opposition
Commissioner Seibert - Made a motion to close the Public Hearing, seconded by
Commissioner Yu and unanimously carried.
Chairman Griffiths — Closed the Public Hearing and began discussion.
Commissioner I e Berthon — Stated that he did not see a problem with the application
and that this particular location has been used as an auto repair facility in the past.
Stated that he would vote in favor of granting the Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that he concurred.
Commissioner Yu — Stated that he also concurred but wanted to add as one of the
conditions that vehicles be kept indoors overnight. Stated that with that condition he was
in favor of granting the Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that he did not have any objection to granting the Conditional
Use Permit but would like to see some conditions put in for the City's protection.
Director Dawson — Stated that as part of their application in a letter dated January 24,
2005, they do outline the parameters of the business and that he would suggest that the
following be conditions of approval: 1) that the specific type of auto repair which would be
conducted at the facility be as follows: oil changes, lubrication, tune -up, brake repair,
smog checks, wheel alignment, air - conditioning service, and light repair, that the
contemplated business be operated within the nine bays, that the hours of operation be
from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday thru Saturday, that they have four employees
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 9
•working at this location, no independent contractors would be working at this location.
Lastly, that if K -Mart would cease to do business at this location, the auto repair use
would cease to do business or the Conditional Use Permit would expire, unless
specifically extended by this granting body, no overnight parking in the outdoors as
indicated by Commissioner Yu and lastly, no freestanding or roof signage for the
business.
Commissioner Seibert — Asked if Pep Boys was open on Sundays.
Director Dawson — Stated yes.
Commissioner Seibert — Asked why this applicant was being restricted not to open on
Sundays.
Director Dawson — Stated that in their letter they stated they would be open Monday thru
Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Stated that he is recommending in support of what they
requested.
Kal Fakhoury, 1038 Canyon Dr — Stated that they would like seven days.
Director Dawson — Stated that the condition would be changed to seven days a week,
from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• City Attorney Martin — Stated that the motion would be to adopt the resolution that is
going to be prepared by Director Dawson listing the standard conditions for any C.U.P.
together with the conditions as outlined by Director Dawson verbally and with the hours
and days indicated.
Commissioner I e Berthon — Stated that was the motion, to approve the above mentioned
along with the Negative Declaration, Seconded by Commissioner Seibert and
unanimously carried.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit
carried. Stated that there is a 15 -day appeal /review period to the City Council.
C. PUBLIC HEARING:
TO MODIFY AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING PRIVATE LEARNING
CENTER WHICH OPERATES WITH A MAXIMUM
STUDENT ENROLLMENT OF 30 PUPILS TO
EXPAND THEIR SCHOOL FACILITY SO AS TO
ADD AN ADDITIONAL 1,052 SQUARE FEET OF
SPACE AND TO ALLOW A TOTAL ENROLLMENT
OF UP TO 50 STUDENTS. THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED IN THE WEST COMMERCIAL (WC)
DISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 10
SITE:
CASE NO.:
BUSINESS OWNER/
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
5925 N. OAK AVENUE
MODIFICATION OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97 -1329
ALICE NI -JUNG WONG
5923 N. OAK AVENUE
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780
CHIA LEE CHANG
P.O. BOX 80587
SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA 91118 -8587
RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT
2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
3) NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4) ADOPT RESOLUTION
Director Dawson - Read the Staff Report dated February 22, 2005.
Commissioner Yu — Asked how long the Good Time Learning Center has been utilizing
two units.
Director Dawson - Stated that the applicant stated since 1998.
Assistant Planner Gulick- Narrarated and showed the presentation.
Director Dawson - Read a letter of opposition from the S &S Postal Center.
Chairman Griffiths — asked if there were questions of the Staff and opened the public
hearing.
Stan S7eto — Stated that he was representing the business owner of Good Time
Learning. Stated that he had a letter dated 1996 regarding how many students the
business had at that time and explained why there was not a Conditional Use Permit for
the 5925 location.
Commissioner Seibert — Asked what the hours of operation were for the business.
Stan Szeto — Stated that the hours are from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Seihed — Asked the range of ages for the students.
Stan S7eto — Stated that they are 3rd grade age up to sixteen years age and they did not
drive; most of the teenagers walk to the center.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 11
• Commissioner Seibert — Asked if he had any comment to the letter of opposition
submitted.
•
•
Commissioner Yu — Asked if there are any parking spaces in the center designated for
particular businesses.
Stan S7eto — Stated that there is not assigned parking. Stated that he wanted to explain
some history to the Planning Commission. Stated that Ms. Wong purchased the
business from the previous owner who occupied the 5925 unit and two years later she
moved over to the 5923 unit and Conditional Use Permit was approved by the City for a
maximum of 30 students. The reason why she moved from the 5925 unit to the 5923 unit
was because the 5923 unit was slightly bigger and subsequent to that another private
learning center moved into the 5925 unit and they had ten students and were called
U.S.R. and did not obtain a Conditional Use Permit because they only had ten students.
Stated that U.S.R occupied 5925 for about 18 months and then moved across the street.
Stated that is when Ms. Wong decided to occupy the 5925 unit and she did not know that
she needed a Conditional Use Permit because she was already operating the Good Time
Learning Center.
Director Dawson - Stated that the applicant told him that she originally moved into 5925
and the letter that Mr. Szeto referring to relates to the original Good Time Learning Center
and the original approval was for no more than ten pupils per session and there was no
C.U.P. required, then she moved next door to 5923 and she came in and got a C.U.P.
Stan S7eto — Stated that was correct.
Commissioner Seibert — Asked how many students she had now.
Stan S7eto — Stated she is allowed up to 30 and has about that number.
Chairman Griffiths — Asked if there were any questions.
Commissioner Seibert — Asked if the owner had received any complaints.
Stan S7eto — Stated that she has never received any complaints about parking.
Commission .r S .ibert — Asked about other complaints about kids running around the
parking lot, etc.
Stan Szeto — Stated that she did not make any mention of that.
Commissioner Le Berthon — Asked how many parking spaces are taken by parents who
stay there with their children.
Stan S7eto — Stated that not all the parents go there at the same time and he would have
to say about three.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 12
Commissioner I s Berthon —Asked if they would accept a condition that stated that no
child would be permitted leave the premises until such time as that child is ready to be
picked up and they will remain inside the premises.
tan S7eto — Stated that was acceptable.
Commissioner ibert — Asked if is there is a lobby area to wait for their rides.
Stan S7eto — Stated that there is a lobby area.
Chairman Griffiths — Asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak in favor or against
the application.
l inda Payne, 9660 I as Tunas Dr — Stated that she was speaking as the president of the
Chamber of Commerce. Stated that they have received several phone calls complaining
about the traffic situation at that location.
J inda Payne, 9660 I as Tunas Dr, — Stated that she was speaking as a business owner.
And that over the years we have had a lot of schools come into the business district and it
is really a problem. She is constantly outside baby- sitting, cleaning up gum off the
sidewalk, picking up trash, picking up cigarette butts.
Chairman Griffiths — Asked if anyone else wanted to speak in opposition
as- 1 see
-
-II • -
— Stated that her major concern is the
same situation and that she agrees with the previous speaker. Stated that she has
pictures of a full parking lot at another location, in the same area. Read a letter of
opposition regarding traffic.
Chairman Griffiths, — Asked if anyone else wanted to speak in opposition or in favor.
Bob Welemin, 4909 Arden Dr , Temple City — Spoke in favor of the project because he
felt that the business was good for the children. State he was concerned about the safety
issue only. Stated that he was very concerned about the safety issue of the children and
that something needed to be done to protect them.
Commissioner S _ib .rt — Stated that he wanted to clarify that the photographs that Ms.
Wood supplied were not of the property in question.
Chairman Griffiths — Asked if anyone else wanted to speak in opposition or in favor.
Nancy Wong, 5921 Oak Avenue, Temple City — Stated that she is one of the instructors
at MAC System that is at the same shopping center and that their students are not
allowed to leave until the parents pick them up. Stated that they do not have more than
ten students at a time and that they are only open three days during the week
Commissioner Yt t — Asked if there was a parking problem at the shopping center.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
•
•
•
"
"
"
P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 0 5
P a g e 1 3
N a n n y W o n g } S t a t e d t h a t t h e r e w a s , e s p e c i a l l y a t 6 : 0 0 p . m . S t a t e d t h a t G o o d T i m e
L e a r n i n g C e n t e r s e s s i o n s a r e a l l o v e r a t 6 : 0 0 p . m . a n d t h a t i s w h e n t h e r e i s t r a f f i c .
C o m m i s s i o n e r S e i b e r t A s k e d i f t h e o t h e r b u s i n e s s e s i n t h e c e n t e r w e r e o p e n a t 6 : 0 0
p . m .
N a n c y W o n g S t a t e d s h e b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e d e n t a l o f f i c e w a s o p e n u n t i l s i x a n d S & S i s
o p e n u n t i l 5 : 0 0 , b u t s h e d i d n o t t h i n k a n y o t h e r b u s i n e s s e s w e r e o p e n u n t i l 6 : 0 0 .
C h a i r m a n G r i f f i t h s A s k e d i f a n y o n e e l s e w a n t e d t o s p e a k . A s k e d t h e a p p l i c a n t f o r
r e b u t t a l .
S t a n S e t o S t a t e d t h e G o o d T i m e L e a r n i n g C e n t e r w o u l d t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e m e a s u r e s
f o r t h e s a f e t y o f t h e c h i l d r e n a n d m a k e s u r e t h e y a r e n o t o u t s i d e t h e p r e m i s e s u n t i l t h e y
a r e p i c k e d u p .
C o m m i s s i o n e r S e i b e r t - - M a d e a m o t i o n t o c l o s e t h e P u b l i c H e a r i n g , s e c o n d e d b y
C o m m i s s i o n e r Y u a n d u n a n i m o u s l y c a r r i e d .
C h a i r m a n G r i f f i t h s C l o s e d t h e P u b l i c H e a r i n g a n d b e g a n d i s c u s s i o n .
C o m m i s s i o n e r Y u A s k e d D i r e c t o r D a w s o n i f h e h a s r e c e i v e d a n y c o m p l a i n t s r e g a r d i n g
t h e p a r k i n g a t t h i s l o c a t i o n .
D i r e c t o r D a w s o n S t a t e d t h a t h e h a s i n t h e p a s t y e a r .
C o m m i s s i o n e r Y u A s k e d i f a l l l e a r n i n g c e n t e r s r e q u i r e d a C . U . P .
D i r e c t o r D a w s o n S t a t e d t h a t t h e y d i d .
C o m m i s s i o n e r Y u S t a t e d t h a t h e c o n c u r r e d w i t h t h e S t a f f R e p o r t t o o n l y a l l o w 3 0
s t u d e n t s . S t a t e d t h a t h e i s i n f a v o r o f l e t t i n g t h e m o c c u p y t h e a d d i t i o n a l u n i t , b u t n o t t o
i n c r e a s e t h e s t u d e n t c o u n t .
C o m m i s s i o n e r I e B e r t h o n S t a t e d t h a t b a s e d u p o n t h e t e s t i m o n y , h e a g r e e s w i t h
C o m m i s s i o n e r Y u a n d t h a t i t s e e m s t h a t t h e p a r k i n g i s a l r e a d y b a d a n d t h a t a d d i n g
a d d i t i o n a l s t u d e n t s w o u l d o n l y m a k e i t w o r s e . S t a t e d t h a t h e a l s o i s i n f a v o r o f l e t t i n g
t h e m o c c u p y t h e a d d i t i o n a l u n i t , b u t n o t t o i n c r e a s e t h e s t u d e n t c o u n t .
C o m m i s s i o n e r S e i b e r t S t a t e d t h a t h e a g r e e s a n d t h a t h e d o e s n o t f e e l t h e i n c r e a s e o f
s t u d e n t s i s w a r r a n t e d . S t a t e d t h a t h e f e l t t h e r e s h o u l d b e a c o n d i t i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n
w a i t i n s i d e u n t i l t h e p a r e n t s c o m e i n s i d e t o p i c k t h e m u p .
C h a i r m a n G r i f f i t h s S t a t e d t h a t h e a l s o c o n c u r r e d a n d t h a t t h e c e n t e r i s v e r y c o n g e s t e d .
S t a t e d t h a t h e i s i n c l i n e d t o g o w i t h t h e S t a f f s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t o a l l o w t h e u s e o f t h e
s p a c e , b u t n o t a d d i t i o n a l s t u d e n t s .
N : \ W o r d \ D e p a r t m e n t \ C D D \ M I N S \ P C M I N U T E S 2 0 0 5 \ P C M I N U T E S F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 . d o c
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 14
Commissioner Yit — Made a motion to approve Modification of Conditional Use Permit 97-
1329 to allow the Good Time Learning Center to occupy both units, but to deny the
request to increase the student enrollment and also to approve the Negative Declaration
and adopt the draft resolution with the additional condition, seconded by Commissioner
Le Berthon and unanimously carried.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that the Planning Commission has approved the request to
allow the expanded space, but denied any increase in the maximum number of permitted
pupils. Stated that there is a 15 -day appeal /review period.
D. PUBLIC HEARING: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ZONE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT (CELESTES) TO
BE SITUATED IN A 1,430 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL SPACE, WHICH IS ADDRESSED AT
5818 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD. THE
PROPOSED RESTAURANT WILL INCLUDE
OUTDOOR DINING AND PROPOSES TO SERVE
BEER AND WINE FOR ON- PREMISES
CONSUMPTION. THE ZONE VARIANCE IS
NECESSARY BECAUSE THE SUBJECT SITE
CONTAINS NINE SHARED PARKING SPACES,
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 15 SPACES; THE
ZONING CODE REQUIRES FOOD
ESTABLISHMENTS TO PROVIDE ONE (1)
PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY 100 SQUARE FEET
OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. THE SUBJECT SITE IS
LOCATED IN THE TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD
COMMERCIAL (TC) DISTRICT OF THE
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN.
SITE:
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT
BUSINESS OWNER:
DESIGNER:
5818 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -1613
ZONE VARIANCE 05 -1614
OSCAR SIERRA
14001 NUBIA STREET
BALDWIN PARK, CALIFORNIA 91706
MORE SERVICES
12106 LABERT AVENUE
EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 91732
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 15
• PROPERTY OWNER: MARCIA M. BRUNO
20961 COASTVIEW LANE
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648
RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT
2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
3) NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4) ADOPT RESOLUTION
Director Dawson - Read the Staff Report dated February 22, 2005. Read three letters
of support into the record.
Assistant Planner Gulick- Narrarated and showed the presentation.
Commissioner Yu_ — Asked if they had some kind of parking agreement with the neighbor.
Director Dawson — Stated that they have not submitted one, but they were talking about
obtaining it. Asked for the public parking lot to be shown on the projector and illustrated
how close it is to the subject site. Stated that there are about 60 parking spaces in the
public parking lot and that the south part of the parking lot is for employees and that
portion seems to be used often. The northern part of the lot is limited to two -hour parking
and that is under - utilized currently.
• Chairman Griffiths — Asked if there were any other questions of the Staff and opened the
Public Hearing.
Oscar Sierra — Stated that he is the applicant and that he is trying to work with the City to
come up with a workable parking solution. Stated that he would like to conduct business
in Temple City and that he is hoping for approval.
Commissioner Seibert — Asked if he had read the conditions of approval and if he agreed
to them.
Oscar Sierra — Stated that he did read them and agrees with them.
Commissioner Seibert — Asked if 8:00 a.m. was early enough for breakfast.
Oscar Sierra — Stated that was okay.
Chairman Griffiths— Asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor.
Helen Metz, 10685 Freer - Stated that she was in favor of the restaurant. Spoke about
the high quality of the restaurant. Stated that Temple City needs a place like this.
Nancy Robles, 14001 Nubia Street, Baldwin Park — Stated that she is the applicant's wife
• and that she was speaking in support of the restaurant. Stated that she has had
numerous phone calls and e-mails from people who are in support of the restaurant.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 16
Jaime Saravia, 8281 Old Archibald Ranch ario — Stated that he is a pastor and
that he is in favor of the restaurant and believes that he is one of the finest chefs that
Temple City could have. Spoke about the quality of the food that would be served.
Chairman Griffiths — Asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition.
11.
-•• - • • I -
- :
- .11
— Stated that he is the
legal council to the owner of the adjoining northern property addressed as 5820 Temple
City Blvd. Stated that no one is opposed to the concept of a restaurant that would add
luster to the City of Temple City. Stated that the application is silent with respect to the
parking and the impact of parking to the adjoining property. Stated that valet is the
accepted norm in the greater L.A. area. Stated that he felt that was an easy alternative.
Stated that his client would not agree to any change in the current parking arrangement
because it basically ignores his right as a property owner. Stated that he wants to clarify
that they do not have a problem with a new restaurant coming in and it is needed but you
cannot just take over the neighbor's parking, especially given the impact of the current
parking situation.
John Shaw, 5816 Temple City Blvd., - Stated that he owns the property directly south.
Stated that when that location was a laundry business, the water pumped out of the
laundry units into this big well and then it drained into the sewer. Stated that it is currently
covered with rotted wood and it is unsightly. Stated that he was speaking for two other
businesses as well. Stated that between the three businesses they have shared parking
per an oral agreement. Stated that they are concerned that there is going to be a
shortage of parking, particularly because this is such a great restaurant. Stated that he
was concerned that some of the restaurant patrons were going to use their parking lot
Commissioner Yu — Asked if all of the customers for the restaurant parked in the public
lot, would he still have a problem with the restaurant. Asked how many of his customers
use the public lot.
John Shaw, 5816 Temple City Blvd., - Stated that generally his customers use his parking
lot and not the public lot.
Commissioner Yu — Asked if he was aware of any shortage of public parking in the public
lot.
John Shaw, 5816 Temple City Blvd., - Stated that he was not aware of a shortage.
Mark Eisenberg, Attorney.- Stated that he felt that a condition of approval should be that
the restaurant exclusively uses the public parking lot and that would be acceptable.
Stated that valet parking would also be acceptable and should be a condition of approval.
inda Payne — Asked if alcohol was going to be allowed at the tables on the sidewalk
City Attorney Martin — Stated that the applicant would have to comply with ABC rules.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 17
Judith Garcia, 5820 Temple City Blvd., Temple City — Stated that she is one of the
owners of the hair salon next door. Stated that her concern was the parking situation.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that a posting of "No Restaurant Parking" could be posted
on their parking lot.
Judith Garcia — Stated that they have had signs up before but some people ignore the
signs. Stated that she would like to see that the owner of the restaurant place signs to
indicate to his customer to use the public parking lot.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that would be considered.
Katie Hernandez, 9935 Rio Hondo Parkway, El Monte, CA — Stated that she was in favor
of the project and that she did not think that any of the customers would mind walking just
a few feet in order to enjoy a good meal.
Joe Moreno, 12105 I ambert Ave., El Monte — Stated that he felt there was a solution and
that Mr. Sierra agrees that a panic /exit only button mechanism on the rear door that reads
"Emergency Exit Only" would force the patrons to enter the business through Temple City
Boulevard. Stated that if the solution is leaving the parking lot the way it is, that is fine
with the applicant and that there is no intent to change it. Stated that the well will be
taken care of.
Commissioner Yu — Asked how the tenants on the second floor access the parking lot.
Joe Moreno — Stated that if they park in the rear, they have to walk around to the front.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated to the applicant that when the tenant improvements take
place, they are going to have to meet some ADA standards and some of the standards
are handicap parking, which is probably going to have to be in the back.
,Joe Moreno — Stated that they could accommodate that.
Commissioner Seibert — Asked how they would accommodate that if they have a closed
door in the rear.
Joe Moreno — Stated that ADA allows for assistance and they could have assistance from
the ownership. Stated that there could be a call button letting the restaurant know that
they need to enter the restaurant from the rear door. Stated that ADA has some
flexability and they come out and check out the existing site.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that it is usually controlled by the local building
department.
Director Dawson - Stated that there are handicap parking spaces designated in the
public lot and was wondering if that would meet ADA requirements.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 18
Commissioner Yu — Stated that he believed that there is ADA parking provided in the
public parking lot and that the slope is such that a wheel chair bound person could come
from the parking lot into the restaurant.
Chairman Griffiths - Asked the applicant for a rebuttal but he did not give one.
Commissioner Seibert — Made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by
Commissioner Yu and unanimously carried.
Chairman Griffiths — Closed the Public Hearing and began discussion.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that parking is a problem. Stated that he did not have a
problem with the Conditional Use Permit and felt the restaurant would be a big benefit to
the City. Stated that the neighbor had valid concerns and there has to be some way to
control it. Stated that he felt that the posting of the signs inside the restaurant is a
reasonable request and the clientele of the restaurant would obey these signs. Stated
that if there are signs posted on the adjoining properties that there is no restaurant
parking, etc. then that might also help. Stated that one of the conditions should be that
Celeste's provide the signs and that the adjoining property owners could post them if they
wanted to. Stated that with the public parking lot, he did not think it would be a problem.
Commissioner Yu — Stated that he concurred with Commissioner Seibert and felt that
Celeste's would be a nice addition for the City. Stated that in addition to requiring the
owner to place signs on the neighbors' property, he would also add a condition to not put
any signage in the back of their parking lot so that it is not viewed as an entrance in the
rear.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that his only concern on that is the handicap parking.
Commissioner Le Berthon — Stated that there are nine parking spaces and they should
be able to use them. Stated that they will still put a sign indicating that there is additional
parking in the public lot and also indicating not to park on the adjoining lots..
Director Dawson — Stated that it could be posted in the rear "Employee and Tenant
Parking Only ". Stated that signage in the restaurant should read "Patrons to park in the
public lot to the north ".
Commissioner I e Berthon — Stated that handicap parking should also be in the rear, even
if not required by ADA. Stated that he is in favor of the restaurant and that it is a great
addition for Temple City. Stated that the parking problems are being addressed and he
has given his opinion.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that he concurred.
Commissioner Seibert — Made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit 05 -1613 and
Zone Variance 05 -1614 with the revised conditions as read by City Attorney Martin.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc
•
•
Planning Commission
February 22, 2005
Page 19
• City Attorney Martin — Stated that as he understood the consensus that condition number
one will be that the restaurant will provide parking signs which indicate no parking on
neighboring properties for a distance of 100 feet, the cost of the signs to be reimbursed
by the restaurant to be not more than $100 per sign and one per property. Stated that
there will also be signs in the restaurant advising all people to use the public parking lot.
Stated that there will also be no parking and parking by employees and owners only signs
in the rear, except for any required or allowed ADA requirements.
Director Dawson — Stated that he would modify condition number three to require that the
well, filter or pit be closed off and be made safe.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that was the motion, along with the negative declaration,
seconded by Commissioner Yu and unanimously carried.
Chairman Griffiths — Stated that the motion to approve carried and was subject to a 15-
day appeal /review period.
8. COMMUNICATIONS: None
9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: None
10. ADJOURNMENT
• There being no further business, Chairman Griffiths adjourned the meeting at
10:50 P.M.
Secretary
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2005 \PC MINUTES February 22, 2005.doc