HomeMy Public PortalAbout11) 9C Review of PSC Decision- A Golden House Parking Lot Parking RestrictionsCity Council
April17, 2012
Page 2
2 . In April 2009, the impact study conducted for A Golden House (by Traffic Design,
Inc .) revealed a deficiency of seven (7) parking spaces during peak weekday
hou rs. The study conducted for Kang Kang Food Court (by KOA Corporation)
revealed a deficiency of 15 parking spaces during peak hours.
3. In June 2009, staff completed its review of the third-party impact studies and
concluded no significant effects. A Negative Declaration environmental document
was then prepared for approval of the C .U.P. for both businesses. Although the
environmental documents found no significant impacts , mitigation measures (i.e .,
in-lieu parking fees) were imposed by the Planning Commission to compensate for
the parking deficienci es .
4 . On July 28 , 2009 , the Planning Commission approved a Negative Declaration and
C.U .P. for A Golden House and Kang Kang Food Court. Both businesses opened
shortly thereafter.
5 . In July 2011 , representatives of the nearby Green Island Restaurant (9556 Las
Tunas Dr.) requested a change to the parking restrictions in District Lot 2A/2B and
City Lot 8D , convert i ng 37 all-day parking spaces to limited 2-hour parking . This
request was to accommodate the restaurant's lunch hour rush.
6. On August 10 , 2011, the Public Safety Commission approved the request by
Green Island Restaurant to modify the parking terms . This action from the Public
Safety Commission set a precedent for businesses requesting a parking -term
modification in City-owned parking lots .
7 . In October 2011 , the City initiated its downtown parking study to assess the need
for additional public parking . The study will provide a set of re c ommendations for
implementing changes that would improve downtown public parking conditions for
businesses , their customers , and surrounding residential properties.
8 . In December 2011 , Betty Ren , owner of A Golden House, requested a
modification to the parking restrictions in District Lot 3, converting 30 all-day
parking spaces to limited 2-hour parking. This request was based on her
assumption that the parking-term modification granted to Green Island Restaurant
negatively impacted her business because the employees of surrounding
businesses migrated towards the all-day parking spaces located in District Lot 3 .
9 . In February 2012 , a notice was sent to the tenant and property owners
surrounding A Golden House, notifying them of the requested changes to the
parking restrictions in District Lot 3 .
10. On February 8, 2012, the Publ ic Safety Commission reviewed the request and
received testimony from 12 people. A majority of the comments centered on the
fact that a change in the restrictions would deter employee pa rk ing for certain
businesses . The Public Safety Commission voted to deny the request based on
City Counc il
April17, 2012
Page 3
the prelim inary parking capacity assessment (prepa red by RBF Consulting ) and
comments rece ived during the meeting .
11 . In March 2012, Mayor Yu , requested that the City Council review the Public Safety
Commission 's decision to deny the request by Betty Ren of A Golden House .
ANALYSIS :
Based on the recommendat ions set forth in this report , staff has c ompiled the following
options for consideration and possible action :
Option 1. Uphold the Public Safety Commission 's Decision
The Public Safety Commission denied the request to amend the parking restrictions in
District Lot 3 because of preliminary parking capacity data compiled by RBF for the
downtown parking study. The study's preliminary findings analyze parking stall counts ,
whi ch show that the parking lot is not at full capacity du ring peak weekday hours
(Exhibit B).
Pros to Upholding the Decision
• Maintains current long-term parking for employees of adjacent businesses.
• Ma intains integrity of the preliminary parking capacity analysis showing that
utilization of District Lot 3 is under capacity .
Cons to Upholding the Decision
• Statements by Betty Ren indicating that she is losing business . This
presents a possibility of losing an established business and creating
another vacancy on Las Tunas Dr.
• Customers may not patronize local businesses because of a limited number
of transitional 2-hour parking spaces in District Lot 3 .
Option 2 . Reverse the Public Safety Commission 's Decision
Th is option would approve Betty Ren 's request for increased transitional pa rking by
converting 30 ali-day parking spaces to limited 2-hour parking. In other words , the
entire parking lot would be limited to 2-hour parking between 7 a.m .- 6 p .m ., Monday-
Saturday (Exhibit C).
City Council
April17 , 2012
Page 4
Pros to Reversing the Decision
• Allows for more transitional parking for customers of those businesses that
have short-term parking needs (e.g., restaurants , banks, salons , retail, etc .).
• May possibly meet long-term needs of future adjacent businesses that are
based around short-term parking needs.
• Encourages a business and customer friendly environment by providing
prime parking spaces for customers , so that they may have easy access to
local businesses.
Cons to Reversing the Decision
• Costs associated with the purchase and installation of new or replacement
parking signs ($500 -$700).
• Requires amending data collected for the downtown parking study. This
may increase the project budget and delay its completion.
• Eliminating long-term employee parking may have negative effects on other
businesses .
Option 3. Re-pave and Re-stripe District Lot 3
At the suggestion of Mayor Yu , this option provides 11 additional 2-hour parking spaces
by repaving and restriping District Lot 3 with 90 degree parking throughout the lot. This
would increase the number of 2-hour parking spaces by 48% (Exhibit D).
Pros to Re-paving and Re-striping District Lot 3
• Maintains the existing 30 all-day parking spaces and adds 11 new 2-hour
parking spaces.
• Keeps long-term employee parking intact and could help meet the needs of
future businesses.
• Maximizes parking capacity within the existing boundaries of District Lot 3.
• Could help set a precedent for more parking stalls in City-owned public
parking lots by re-configuring and re-striping public parking lots .
• May eliminate the need for "back-in" parking restrictions as vehicular traffic
would not be restricted to travelling in one direction (one-way traffic) when
entering or exiting the parking lot.
City Council
April17, 2012
Page 5
Cons to Re-paving and Re-striping District Lot 3
• Partially meets the needs of Betty Ren by adding 11 new 2-hour parking
spaces.
• Cost for contractor to perform the work ($9K-$1 OK).
• Short-term impact to businesses during repaving and restriping . The
parking lot will be closed for approximately three (3) days.
• Creates smaller parking spaces. Two direction travel in the parking lot may
create some safety concerns .
• Requ ires amending data collected for the downtown parking study . This
may increase the project budget and delay its completion .
Option 4 . Delay the Decision . Pending Completion of the Downtown Parking Study
The City has retained RBF Consulting to conduct a comprehensive downtown parking
study and develop a strategic plan to analyze current parking trends and demand ; and
to set the framework for meeting current and future parking needs of businesses along
Las Tunas Dr. The Downtown Parking Study is a tool that will assist the City with
economic development by promoting liveliness and the expansion of businesses along
Las Tunas Dr. The draft plan is scheduled to be presented to the City Council , and
Planning and Public Safety Commissions in May. It would then be approved and
f inalized in June by the City Council , with implementation set to begin shortly thereafter .
The plan may include District Lot 3 .
Pros to Delaying the Decision
• Keeps the Downtown Parking Study on track and on budget.
• Does not haphazardly react to community concerns without first analyzing
the relationship of cause and effect on the surrounding residential and
commercial community .
• Retains the integrity of the project scope.
Cons to Delaying the Decision
• Does not address the immediate concerns of Betty Ren 's request , which
may have a financial and operational impact on her business.
• May prevent the City f rom pursu ing other opportunities to support the vitality
and expansion of businesses along Las Tunas Dr.
City Council
April 17, 2012
Page 6
Option 5. Refer the Request Back to the Public Safetv Commission (PSG) for Additional
Review
In light of the newly developed options, the City Council may chose to refer the request
back to the Public Safety Commission for further review. The options, with their pros
and cons, would be presented to the Commission.
Pros to Referring Back to the PSG
• Will allow the PSC to complete a detailed analysis of all available options to
accommodate the request by Betty Ren.
Cons to Referring Back to the PSG
• Will not meet Betty Ren's immediate concerns as the request will have to
be agendized and noticed for a subsequent Public Safety Commission
meeting.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council is requested to review the Public Safety Commission's decision to
deny a request by Betty Ren for a 2-hour parking time limit in District Lot 3, assess the
five (5) staff proposed options, and request that the Public Safety Commission re-
evaluate its denial in light of the five (5) proposed options or direct staff to implement
the option(s) selected.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Downtown Parking Map/District Lot 3 Aerial
B. Parking Capacity Assessment
C. Existing Parking Lot Conditions/Proposed Changes
D. Layout of District Lot 3 after Restriping
E. Public Safety Commission Resolution No . PSC 12-0006
F. Public Safety Commission Staff Report
G. Public Safety Commission Meeting Minutes
2 Hour Parking Limit
-All Day Parlllng Allowed
D City Hall Employee Parlllng Lot
Pemtlt Mon .-Fr112am-6pm;SIL-&In.12Ml-Bam
Pubic: Mon.-Fri. 8pm-12am; s.t -Sun. Bam -128m
Private Par1dng lot
Overnight Parking and &lck-ln Padclrrg are prohlbfted In any
City/District Parking Lot
)>
,.-+
,.-+
Q)
()
:::J'"
3
CD
:::J
,.-+
)>
(1)
> ·c
0
Q) (/) (/) co
:J c
0 :J
Il-
cCCI)('t')
0 Q) co
·-"'0 .....J ~ ... -.._, co o co ·c
U(901i)
0 co·-.....J<{O')O
CA11·1028·20U
TEMPLE CITY (OFF-~EET PARKING TUESDAY · OCT08ER 25, 2011
I SPACES LOCATION lYP'E 100DAM 1100AM l200PM 1300PM l"'OOPM 15DOPM 1600PM 1700PM • "11 UNMARKED 7 9 8 7 7 6 6 6
2 ZONE A HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 12 12 11 12 1-_1! __ . 11 11 10 ........ ---·--· ... ----·-···--2 ZONEB HANDICAP 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
1"1 UNMARKED J 5 8 . _..!.L 77 B 5 __ L_ -·---... ..... ------··· ---. ..... ----·----0 ZONEC HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 6 11 10 8 9 10 9 11
2 ZONED HANDICAP 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
15 UNMARKED 9 10 _!!.__ 13 11 10 9 !! ___ . -.. -·----.. ·-----.. -0 ZONE E HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
54 . --· ---UNMARKED 16 20 17 19 19 20 15 22 ----~ -------·-·-o--·-o-·-1---··-·-0 ZONE F HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0
22 UNMARKED 10 11 12 6 7 5 8 12
0 ZONEG HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 UNMARKED 6 16 15 12 9 __ s __ 6 9 ·-----·-------··-2 ZONE H HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
24 UNMARKED 13 13 14 13 12 10 13 9 -··-----·---·---~--·----···--·-··--·----· 2 ZONE J HANDICAP 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
24 UNMAIUC.ED 10 12 9 10 12 11 11 12
0 ZONEJ HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 UNMAIUC.ED 13 17 12 13 15 17 22 14
2 ZONE K HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED .. !_ __ . 7 . -_? __ 9 7 9 11 9 -----· . -·-·-------.. ---·--· ---· -----·---2 ZONEL HANDICAP 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
13 UNMARKED 2 • 2 7 5 5 8 9 7
0 ZONEM HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 UNMARKED 17 18 21 19 25 20 1'1 12
0 ZONEN HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 UtiMA.RkC_p l'l 14 11 14 12 Cj !() 9
3 10'4£:0 hANDICAP J 1 2 1 0 1 G l
30 UNMAIUCED j _J.'I H ll e 10 H lO 10 -· ---~-· 0 ZONEP HANDICAP ' (i 0 0 () 0 c 0 (j
12 UNMARKED 8 10 i2 12 10 12 11 12
2 ZONEQ HANDICAP 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
17 UNMARKED 11 11 12 15 13 12 11 ___ 1~--·-····-----·---. -'------a ·----0--()-~····---0 ZONER HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0
13 UNMARKED 8 11 9 10 11 13 13 13
6 ZONES CHASE 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
6 UNMARKED 'I 5 6 6 6 6 6 5
2 ZOHET HANDICAP 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0
12 UNMARKED ---~ _ _12 __ 10 __ a ___ 9 7 10 8 -···-I-ZONE U ------· --·---0 HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 12 11 8 10 12 11 8 9
0 ZONEV HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 UNMAIUCED 8 6 10 12 1'1 15 16 1'1
1 ZONEW HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
13 UNMARKED 9 11 10 12 12 12 3 8 --------0 ZONE X HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 UNMARKED 9 10 12 11 12 8 11 6
2 ZONEY HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 UNMARJCEO 10 10 7 10 11 6 15 19
1 ZONEZ-1 HANDI CAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-~--UNMARKED 24 26 25 24 22 21 19 16 -----0 ·----·--5 ZONEZ-2 HANDICAP 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
17 UNMARKED 16 1'1 17 10 8 15 13 -~ ------··-· --2 ZONEZ-3 HANDICAP 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
102 UNMARKED 29 29 27 26 31 27 18 10
3 ZONE Z-'1 HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70'1 TOTAL VEHIClES PARKED 333 363 368 355 429 346 33'1 305
100% PERCENTAGE OCOJPIED <47.30% 51.56% 52.27% 50.43% 60.94% '19.15% .. 7.44% '13 .32CM.
CAll-1028-2011
TEMPLE CITY (ON-srREET PARKING TUESDAY -OCTOBER 25, 2011
SPACES LOCATION TYPE lOOOAM 1100AM 1200PM 1300PM HOOPM lSOOPM 1600PM 1700PM
15 61 -----------9~----"' --4 __ l __ 3 2 .. 7 ------------~------~ 13 62 1 0 3 2 3 2
13 -~l --- ---____ !.__ __ 0 5 6 6 5 5 5 -------··u--16 61 4 3 7 4 8 s 7
15 •. 65 --·--5 g 7 __ _! __ __ _2_1-· 6 ' _.!.._ -~---. -·---·
17 66 3 6 6 8 6 5 10 g
!! -_ __£_ __ _ __ j __ ·-··-"'--__ s ___ 3 4 4 4 --~ ----· ··--~ . --
11 68 3 5 2 3 1 " s
11 69 1 2 3 ~--· -.!.. ·-~ 2 __ ] __ -7o----. ·-. -12--1"1 6 7 11 5 11 8 11
11 71 .. L_ 4 ... ...!-~-7 5 7 _...]__ 7 -----"3-l2 72 4 7 5 4 4 3 3
12 73 1 _...!.__ 4 ·--~---· 4 1 1 1 ------------0------6 74 1 1 1 2 1 3 4
20 . -2~-10 8 7 7 -~--6 5 "' --··--·-"3-t--.q ---s--------6 --16 76 7 9 4 s
11 77 6 8 5 8 .. .. __ 2_ :--L. ------~--o ·-11 78 1 1 1 0 0 1
l1 .. 2L .. 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 __ .!._ ------------~ ····-6 ·-. -------3---~ 11 80 0 2 2 5
13 81 6 3 8 6 6 5 -L (, ·----------~ 13 82 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
... .!!__ 83 3 _ _L_ 3 4 1 5 2 1 ·-------"18 9 -----18 84 1-4 . 12 13 16 13 12
19 85 '~-------s 2 4 6 ] 5 s ..;;...___"' J
20 86 4 9 12 12 8 13 9 8
13 87 6 6 6 _...!_ __ 6 7 L.. 1 ----------------. ---3 ·------· 10 88 ... 3 3 3 3 "' 4
10 89 1 4 __ 4_. 4 5 5 .. 3 t----------------· 15 90 2 8 9 10 7 7 4 6
14 91 5 8 8 10 5 11 8 _ _! ___ ----· ---··---· -----
12 92 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2
u .... !!.._ __ .!._ 1 1 1 1 2 •.. ...!...._ 2 ·---· -----· -
20 94 11 13 16 15 13 10 10 11
18 95 -----__ 6 ___ ___! _ 9 10 9 ~---9 6
~-----·-::--
15 96 4 4 11 8 5 1 3 3
12 ~--5 -~ 5 7 6 s 6 5 ····-··----·-
9 98 0 3 3 2 1 1 1 0
11 99 5 9 ~--~ 6 5 2 2 ·--___ ... __ -· 11 100 1 1 3 5 3 2 1 2
_!~ --101 t----· 7 ·-5 4 3 3 9 8 4
13 102 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 2
13 103 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 . ..
18 104 11 8 6 6 9 10 11 11
~ 105 8 9 7 9 9 8 9 4
14 106 9 8 8 8 7 7 9 7--
19 107 7 r--7 5 7 6 6 6 4 ·-2 12 108 1 1 1 1 0 1 3
12 109 --1 1 __ 3 3 1 1 0 0 ·-6 110 1 2 2 5 1 0 3 0
7 111 .. 2 5 ·-2 2 1 2 0
14 112 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
1"1 113 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 --18 114 3 4 8 7 10 6 2 6
19 ~-3 2 3 4 2 3 .. _ _2_
~-116 2 4 3 4 3 4 8 5
18 117 2 2 --3 3 1 3 3 2 -----
13 118 0 0 0 1 0 0 D D
13 119 3 2 1 J 3 3 1 2 -7 120 1 1 0 1 1 1 D 0
813 !TOTAl VEHla.ES PARKED 223 253 284 290 264 253 2S8 242
100% PERCENTAGE OCCUPIED 27.'134141 31 .124141 34 .931)1, 35.67% 32.47% 31.124141 31.734141 29 .77%
CAll-1028-2011
TEMPlE CnY JOFF-STA.EET PAIUCING SATURDAY-OCTOBER 29 20 11
I SPACES LOCATION lYPE 1200PM 1300PM 1'100PM 1500PM 1600PM l700PM 1BOOPM 1900PM . '11 UNMARKED " 4 3 4 'I 15 17 19
2 ZONE A HANDICAP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 9 10 11 12 12 10 B 7 -.. ---. .. ---------~---. -------2 ZONE B HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1'1 UNMARKED 1'1 15 -~---15 15 _ __!!. __ 12 13 ·---· HANDICAP----·-··--· 0 ZONEC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 12 12 11 12 12 10 .. 3
2 ZONED HANDICAP 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0
1S UNMARKED 15 ---15 15 __ ...!L_ 13 -~--11 12 --···-·--0 ZONE E HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
54 UNMARKED so so 31 21 . _?:L_ 1"' 9 9 -----·-----·---·-------------·--0 ZONEF HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 UHMARKED 22 22 18 12 11 9 6 7
0 ZONEG HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 UNMAJUCED ---~---24 24 __ _!! __ 19 15 18 18 ------. -·--·---0 ---·o--2 ZONE H HANDICAP 2 2 1 1 l 0
2'1 UNMARKED 24 24 24 20 19 15 23 22 --. __ _....., -·-·---··-· --·-----~ -------2 ZONE I HANDICAP 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0
24 UNMARKED 24 24 21 23 22 17 21 20
0 ZONEJ HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 UNMARKED 26 26 2"' 22 23 26 19 19
2 ZONEK HANDICAP 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 12 12 7 8 8 6 7 7 ·-----·-...... ·--·-------· -----·---------o-··--·----·-a ·-2 ZONEl HANDICAP 2 2 1 1 1 0
13 UNMARKED 13 13 11 10 10 6 9 8
0 ZONEM HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 UNMARKED 26 26 20 16 1'1 4 1 1
0 ZONEN HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 UNMARKED ~{) lO ~8 8 7 7 lt-rJ --·--· ....... ---~ ------3 ZONEO HANDICAP J 3 2 0 0 1 I l
__ 30 UNMARKED 28 -.1~ lti •6 t• 17 -~~~-----
0 ZONEP HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0
12 UNMARKED 12 12 12 3 "' 3 0 0
2 ZONEQ HANDICAP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
17 UNMARKED 15 15 14 __ 12 11 _!,_ __ ···--·-0 ------ZONE _R_ -· ------o--0 HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 UNMARKED 13 13 12 11 11 7 9 B
6 ZONES CHASE 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 2
6 UNMARKED 6 6 6 6 6 1 3 3
2 ZONET HANDICAP 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
12 UHMAAKEO 11 11 10 10 9 7 __ 9 ___ 8 -··o ·-----------------ZONEU HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 11 12 12 12 12 11 11 11
0 ZONEV HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 UNMARKED 15 15 16 16 15 11 10 11
1 ZONEW HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 UHMARXED 13 13 13 12 12 11 12 12 --
0 ZONE X HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 UNMARKED 11 11 11 10 10 s 11 11
2 ZONEY HANDICAP 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
23 UNMARKED 15 15 19 16 15 19 8 6
1 ZONE z.t HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 UNMARKED ___ .E._ 17 17 15 14 8 s __ 6 ---r----o s ZONEN HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 UNMARKED 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 _ __Q__ -2 ZONE Z-3 HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102 UNMARKED 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 ZONEZ--4 HANDICAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70'1 TOTAL VEHIC1£S PARKED 487 490 427 364 354 295 290 288
100% PERCENTAGE OCOJPIED 69.18% 69.60% 60.65% 51.70% 50.28% 41.90% "11.19% 'IG.91%
CA11-1028-2011
TEMPLE CITY (ON-STREET PARKING SA~OAY · OCTOSER 29, 2011
SPACES LOCATION TYPE 1200PM 1300PM l'IOOPM lSOOPM 1600PM 1700PM 1800PM 1900PM
15 61 10 B 2. __ 6 _i __ . l. _ _ ?._ __ --~-----·-· ... --· ----·-·----·-----13 62 'I 5 4 3 3 3 4 3
13 .!L. 8 __ _J_ 7 'I ... -1.-2 ---~-6 .. -----··· -.. -----16 64 16 1"1 5 8 7 6 11 5
15 ~L-.. --__ ...!!.. _ _ _!__ 7 _ _..!__ .._!_ __ ___ !.__ 9 ___ 9 __ -----·------·-17 66 17 14 7 6 3 10 9 7
17 67 -·-10 9 7 7 __ 2_ 4 4 -~ --------·-a ·---··s··----7---··--11 68 6 8 7 5 6
.. 1! ... 69 -· -3 5 4 3 3 3 6 _...;..._ -.. -----·ii-----u------ii--14 70 12 1'1 12 9 7
11 71 ---.. ..!_ 9 9 11 ~---8 --.!!!._ .. 10 -· --· ---8 -----s---12 72 8 8 4 3 s 5
12 73 --·-s 7 7 5 'I 5 8 7 ----.,. ____ . -·--· -~ 6 74 7 6 1 1 2 2 2
20 _.?I-12 1'1 12 15 15 10 10 8
--~---------·--------. -'1---.
16 76 8 7 5 3 3 5 3
11 17 5 6 2 --~ __ _!_ --1 7 6 ---·---·· -----~ ---11 78 6 6 5 5 s 8 8 3
11 79 5 _ 3_ .• 1 __ __!__ __ 1 _ 3 .L_ 3 ---------·· -------·· ----11 80 8 7 1 3 0 0 1 s
13 -..!1. --14 13 '/ 5 7 5 !! 1l --------z--13 82 1 3 2 2 2 3 2
.~----83 1 2 3 5 _J __ 1 0 ___ o ___ ----------·-----13--· -·iO--·-· 18 84 13 13 11 11 11 10
19 85 to 13 5 7 1'1 _ _L _ 6 __ 10_ --------··a-20 86 16 18 13 1'1 12 11 12
13 87 10 7 s 5 .. 4 4 7
10 88 4 s 6 6 6 6 5 6
10 89 6 __ s _ 7 7 .. 4 .. 'I -. -----··-----· -·--------·----5----15 90 11 11 12 11 7 4 9
--~---. 91 11 g 12 -~-7 5 11 10 ---------2 -----·-...
12 92 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
_g_ .. -93 0 __ _L_ 0 ____ o_ --·-L 1 _...!_ _ _L _ --· ----i~------·-20 9'1 16 1'1 8 7 8 13 15
18 95 _ _!__ __ 6 ___ _ 2.__ 7 _ _L_ 6 -~-__ 8 __ ---15 96 13 9 8 5 1 0 3 10
12 _JL_ 9 _ _l_ 8 8 8 7 6 __ -~ ----·
9 98 2 " 3 2 3 5 1 0
~---~--1-·----"·-_ __!__ 6 s 5 _.!_ 2 1 --·--
11 100 1 l 3 1 1 0 0 0
11 101 ... 3 4 1 3 __ 0 _ _!_ __ o_._ ------·----·--2 ----1----· 13 102 2 2 2 2 1 1
13 103 4 _ _i__ __ _!_ --.. 3 l l 4 --ll-18 10'1 14 12 17 16 10 6 7
_)]_ -105 ·-------__ !_ 7 6 5 6 7 7 5 -
1'1 106 11 9 11 8 11 10 7 11
19 107 ·-3 'I 5 3 3 5 5 3 -· 12 108 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 1
12 109 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 -----··-------6 110 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 111 ---__ o ____ 0 2 0 0 0 0 _..!.._ --. .
14 112 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 1
-~-113 2 " 1 1 1 2 1 2
18 114 11 6 9 .. 5 7 5 3
_.1!_ __ _.us 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2
14 116 9 1 2 3 1 2 3 2
__!!._ 117 --·--~ __ !_._ _ _l._ 2 2 2 0 3
ll 118 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
_ _2! 119 ------_ _i_ __ __l__ 1--6 5 5 " " 5
7 120 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
813 TOTAL VEHJCLES PARKED 399 385 331 291 266 266 285 293
1~ PERCENTAGE OCCUPIED '19.011% '17.36% 11 .08% 36.16% 32.72% 32.72~ 35.06% 36.0'1%
~~
JJ II ~
II
~· 11 ~AR~IN~ S~AC~S A~DE~ F;;M THERE-STRIPING 0;·-
~s' THE PARKING LOT 1 67 PARKING SPACES TOTAL
t I I I I
I
2'1'
l
il I I I I I J I I
I I I ' I I I I I I I I I II I I I
~
)>
I"'+ I"'+ ,, IQ)
'1 9: ~>. 3
1/ /.> CD / " .. r ./ ,· :::J
I"'+
0
:16 •
....____l
l
'D '
l
r ····--··:~""· , ...... I
I rl ~~--
...... -'"-""· ..
! ~~~-1 ~~ .... L I I! ... ''· ~
-~
~a ·-
/,
' / -/ I //
,_.,.-_
I::..L
6 SPACES GAINED FROM RE-STRIPING WOULD BE CHANGED TO
2-HOUR PARKING SPACES;
AMOUNT OF ALL-DAY PARKING WOULD REMAIN THE SAME.
I . I . ~~ ,,,,,
I I . ~
j I j J .. J.~·
l ..1. l '' . ,, ,..,. '· "X"'i.:"'' \,. ', ",, "'' ·' ''"" ,, -r • f
I I
l
! I
2 -HOUR PARKING
ALL-DAY PARKING
I
I
i I I
'
/, </
/' , ' . '/
Tl .. I
I
28'
1
'
1
I
71'
1
~'\:~ r
~ "''' .... rl ,, ·. "" I JJ ~"''· ,.
'·;,; ... ~ ~
I
·-. '~,
I
1--8'--i
I J
18 SPACES CHANGED INTO 2-HOUR PARKING;
18 SPACES WOULD REMAIN ALL-DAY PARKING
I i I I I I
j I I I
I l I I l I I
I i 'I :1 -1 I I
I
I I I
{ l I I I I l I
j
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ "'-~--~ -... ,
_l f .~~~ ;~"-' 1::. '
\ :;.. '"' i !~-~)
'\.;' '.... . h: ~~"'--. '· '""' I l l I ''
~
' ' I· ,,
2 -HOUR PARKING
ALL-DAY PARKING
'
/,
/I , ..
/!''
' ~'
// J ,. ,, ~
l
211'
.....
I l
l .
27'
l
---! I --~ ~.<s ___ I I I ---r>-: .. :··.~··1··~
• ' -'~ ~ ' ~ 1'~ ~ ~ \_, t ~~ I I '"'. 'I ·-~' ·t I ! .. ~'~~-~ .. I • .. ~ "t t . ~ ->~\'~ -I I I -:~~\:j I I 1 1 ~1 ~-:('" . I . I ~~)J ~
I .
ALL PARKING SPACES WOULD BE CHANGED INTO 2-HOUR
PARKING ONLY
I . i ~~~~' t . . ' ' . i I :i. . . : ~·,J~ ~· I: . I ~ I . .. . . ~ ! I _j~~ .. r • ~ :
. : I .. ! . . " -~ ' " l
I I I ' l '~ "' ,,,
I {'" '· I I
I I "'' l ~· I I I ..
I I I I ~ "
~ ' I ,,,
2 -HOUR PARKING
I I I ; I • I I I
! J
1 ·' I
'
I I I I
RESOLUTION NO. PSC 12-0006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE ALL
DAY PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN DISTRICT LOT 3 AND INSTALL A 2
HOUR PARKING TIME LIMIT IN DISTRICT LOT 3
Attachment E
WHEREAS, Pursuant to section 3338.4 of the Temple City Municipal Code, the Public Safety
Commission shall approve or deny a request for time limit by resolution; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Based upon information contained in the staff report, and based upon testimony
received at a hearing before the Public Safety Commission, the Public Safety Commission finds that there is
sufficient parking in District Lot 3 for use by the patrons of the restaurant (i.e., A Golden House).
SECTION 2. Accordingly, the request is hereby denied.
SECTION 3. The Public Safety Officer shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 81h day of February 2012.
/s/ Jim Clift
CHAIRMAN
ATIEST:
Is/ Bryan Ariizumi
Public Safety Officer
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, Resolution No. PSC 12-0006, was adopted by the
Public Safety Commission of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 81h day of February
2012, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
Commissioner-Baudendistel, Shen, Stratis, Nimri, Clift
Commissioner-None
Commissioner-None
Commissioner-None
Is/ Bryan Ariizumi
Public Safety Officer
Public Safety Commission
February 8, 2012
Page 2
5. On October 25 & 29, 2011, RBF Consulting conducted an on-street and off-street
parking analysis along the Las Tunas Corridor for the Downtown Parking Study
and Strategic Plan.
6. On January 27, 2012, a letter was mailed to the residential and commercial
property owners and tenants within the boundaries of Las Tunas Dr., Camellia
Ave., Workman Ave., and Temple City Blvd .
ANALYSIS:
A Golden House Restaurant is located on the south side of Las Tunas Dr. between
Temple City Blvd. and Camellia Ave. The City-owned public parking lot (i.e., District Lot
3) behind the restaurant provides shared parking for all of the adjacent retail
businesses in the block, including A Golden House Restaurant.
The parking lot behind the restaurant has 57 parking stalls and is divided into two
sections. The northern section of the parking lot has 26 parking stalls (23 regular and 3
disabled) and currently has a 2-hour time limit restriction from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m . The
southern section of the parking lot has 30 parking stalls and currently allows ail-day
parking. Parking is prohibited in all City-owned public parking lots from 2 a.m .- 5 a.m.
Las Tunas Dr., between Temple City Blvd. and Camellia Ave ., has 13 parking stalls
along the south curb . Eleven (11) of the parking stalls have a 2-hour time limit
restriction from 7 a .m . to 6 p.m. and two (2) parking stalls have a 20-minute parking
restriction (enforceable 24 hours). Temple City Blvd. between Workman Ave. and Las
Tunas Dr. has 11 parking stalls along the east curb and has a 2-hour time limit
restriction from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
The parking studies conducted by Traffic Design, inc. and KOA Corporation showed
that if both restaurants (i.e., A Golden House and Kang Kang Food Court) were to
open, they would exceed available parking in the City-owned public parking lot behind
the restaurants. Traffic Design showed a deficiency of seven (7) spaces during peak
weekday hours and KOA showed a deficiency of 15 spaces.
Traffic Design recommended that both restaurants provide valet parking and KOA
recommended 20-minute parking spaces and to have employees use other nearby City-
owned parking lots. Additional City-owned public parking lots are available with in two
(2) to three (3) blocks of the restaurant. As recommended, the employees and
customers can utilize these parking lots which are within a reasonable walking distance
to the restaurant.
The City is currently conducting a parking study of the Las Tunas Corridor for the
development of a Downtown Parking Strategic Plan. The City's consultant, RBF
Consulting, conducted a parking analysis of on-street parking and off~street parking
Public Safety Commission
February 8, 2012
Page 3
(i.e., City-owned parking lots) on Tuesday, October 25, 2011 and Saturday, October 29,
2011. On October 25, 2011 data was collected every hour between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.
and on October 29, 2011 data was collected every hour between 12 p.m. and 7 p.m.
The study shows up to a 71% to 85% occupancy rate during the week and a 86% to
100% occupancy rate during the weekend. This supports staffs recommendation to
change the current parking restrictions in District Lot 3.
A Golden House representatives are requesting removal of the all-day parking
restrictions in District Lot 3 and installation of a 2-hour time limit In the parking lot. If
approved by the Public Safety Commission, this will convert 30 all-day parking stalls to
limited 2 hour parking, thereby creating more transitional parking for customers.
CONCLUSION:
The Public Safety Commission is requested to review the request to remove the all day
parking restrictions and install a 2-hour parking limit and approve or deny the request.
ATTACHEMENTS:
A Draft Resolution No. PSC 12-0006
B. Aerial Map of the City/District Parking Lots
C . Photos of District Parking Lot 3 and Las Tunas Drive
D. Type List of Businesses in the Block
E. Parking Analysis Conducted by RBF Consulting
F. Planning Commission Staff Report (A Golden House)
G. Resolution No. 09-2281 PC (CUP 09-1740)
H. CEQA Negative Declaration (July 2009)
1. Parking Study (Traffic Design, Inc.)
J. Planning Commission Staff Report (Kang Kang Food Court)
K. Resolution No. 09-2280 PC (CUP 09-1738)
L. CEQA Negative Declaration (July 2009)
M. Parking Study (KOA Corporation)
2 Hour Pariling Limit
• All Day Parking Allowed
ID City Hall Employee Parking Lot
F'ennn : Mon.-Fn 12am-6pm; Sat.-Sun. 12am-6am
Public: Mon.-Fn. 6pm-12am; Sal.-Sun. 6am-12am
-Private Parking Lot
Overnight Parking and Back-In Parking are prohibited in any
City/District Parking Lot
c
G) , -0
" cc
en ca ....
co
0
CD en
East on Las Tunas Drive District 3 North Parking
District 3 Looking E North Parking District 3 Looking W North Parking
District 3 Nortft Parking District 3 Looking E South Parking
District 3 L-klng W South Parking District 3 South Parking
Business Name
052-SchooJPnvate
Sh1n Dance Academy Inc
NP • Non-profit
Sh1n Dance Company
PRO • Prof-slonal
Happy Smile Dental Office
Smith & Solomon
Turnmg Poont Phys~eal Therapy
M P Heanng A1d Center
Jeffrey Chen D D S Inc
Greg Wang Law OffiCe
RET • Retail
Amy Vans Shop
A A Gold en House Inc
Kang Kang Food Court
T E Bltm ited
Business Types
9600 -9638 Las Tunas
1/27/2012
Business Address Lie. No.
9621 Las Tunas Or, Temple C1ty CA 91780 004364
Subtotals For Type 052 Businesses (1)
9 621 Las Tunas Or, Temple C1ty CA 91780 005000
Subtotals For Type NP Businesses (1)
9600 Las Tunas Or . Temple Ci ty CA 91180
9631 Las Tunas Dr E, Temple Ci ty CA 91780
9627 Las Tunas Dr, Temple City CA 91780
9631 Las Tunas Dr D·4. Temple City CA 91780
9607 Las Tunas Dr, Temple City CA 91780
0058;>2
001224
002514
007485
007108
9631 E Las Tunas Dr D2, Temple City CA 91780 007854
Subtotals For Type PRO Businesses (6)
9631 Las Tunas Or D 3, Temple Ctly CA 91780
9608 La e Tmas 01 , Tefllplll Cll'l' GA g17ao
96 18 Las TtlnB• Dt . farn ~l~!> Ci ty CA. 917110
9Ei 1 2lR$ Tun3$ Of Tarn pl !l Ci ty CA 917o0
Canac K1tchens Of San Gabriel Valle9615 Las Tunas Or, Temple Ctty CA 91780
007859
OOIQO~
007Dtl!j
003854
004050
0017 17
001748
007038
Creative Art Gal!ery & Gifts -9630 L..as1~ Or T!lmpi~City C#. 9H80
Dominies, Inc. 9629 Las Tunas Dr, Temple City CA 91780
Toner Doug Enlerprise 9631 Las Tunas Dr 0-1 , Temple City CA 91780
T cmplc C tty Bike Shop
Fortune Universal lrJC
Fluid VISIOn Inc.
9628 Las T u nas D r. Temple C ity CA 91780 00:2401)
960 2 Las Tunas Dr #209. T em ple City CA !11760 005600
9619 Las Tunas Dr D, Temple City CA 91780 004967
Emp
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
1
0
5
1
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
Subtotals For Type RET Businesses (11) 19
SRV • Services
"'ada E.or.row Inc.
Quality Bookkeeping
L Saial1
Alfl>(j Holl'lll'l~l!lt
Embellish Salon
9604 l as Tunas Dr, Temp le C1 ty CA ll171!.0
9633 Las Tunas Dr, Temple City CA 91780
9620 Las Tunas Dr. Temple Ci ty CA 9 178&
9602 La s Tunas D r 207, Temple City CA 9l7ll()
9627 1/2 Las Tunas Dr, Temple City CA 91780
()()!)(~~
002265
00297~
007708
007388
15
4
2
0
0
Subtotals For Type SRV Businesses (5) 21
Grand Totals 45
01/27/2012 6:14pm Total Number of Records: 24
N \HDL \bl3\l.SlR.IIleType rpt
Gross Receipts Total Fees
Page 1 of 1
TEMPLE CITY (OF F-STREET PARKING)
SPACES LOCATION TYPE 1000AM 1100AM 1200PM 1300PM
41 UNMARKED 7 9 8 7
2 ZONE A HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 12 12 11 12 .... ---
2 ZONE B HANDICAP 0 1 1 0
14 UNMARKED 3 5 8 12 -
0 ZONE C HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 6 11 10 8
2 ZONED HANDICAP 0 0 1 0
15 UNMARKED 9 10 13 13 -···-
0 ZONE E HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
54 UNMARKED 16 20 17 19
0 ZONE F HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
22 UNMARKED 10 11 12 6
0 ZONEG HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
27 UNMARKED 6 16 15 12 ---·--
2 ZONEH HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
24 UNMARKED 13 13 14 13 -----
2 ZONE I HANDICAP 1 0 1 1
24 UNMARKED 10 12 9 10
0 ZONE l HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
26 UNMARKED 13 17 12 13
2 ZONE K HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 8 7 9 9 -----
2 ZONE L HANDICAP 0 0 1 0
13 UNMARKED 2 • 2 7 5
0 ZONEM HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
30 UNMARKED 17 18 21 19
0 ZONEN HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
23 UNMARKED 17 14 11 14
3 ZON E 0 HANDICAP 3 J 2 1
30 UN MARKED 14 11 11 8 1-·--·-----------------.. ·-
0 ZON E P HANDI CAP 0 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 8 10 12 12
2 ZONE_Q_ HANDICAP 0 1 1 0
17 UNMARKED 11 11 12 15
~----..
0 ZONE R HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
13 UNMARKED 8 11 9 10
6 ZONES CHASE 6 6 6 6
6 UNMARKED 4 5 6 6
2 ZONET HANDICAP 0 0 2 1
12 UNMARKED 11 12 10 8 ------.. ----
0 ZONEU HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 12 11 8 10
0 ZONEV HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
16 UNMARKED 8 6 10 12
1 ZONEW HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
13 UNMARKED 9 11 10 12 ------~--
0 ZONE X HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
11 UNMARKED 9 10 12 11
2 ZONEY HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
23 UNMARKED 10 10 7 10
1 ZONE Z-1 HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
30 UNMARKED 24 26 25 24 . --. . -----------
5 ZONE Z-2 HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
17 UNMARKED 16 14 17 10 -------. ----
2 ZONE Z-3 HANDICAP 1 0 0 0
102 UNMARKED 29 29 27 26
3 ZONE Z-4 HANDICAP 0 0 0 0
704 TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED 333 363 368 355
100% PERCENTAGE OCCUPIED 47.30% 51.56% 52.27% 50.43%
1400PM
7
0
10
0
77
0
9
1
11
0
19 -·
0
7
0
9
1
12
0
12
0
15
0
7
0
5
0
25
0
12
0
10 1-~----
0
10
0
13
0
11
6
6
1
9 ---
0
12
0
14
0
12 ---··-
0
12
0
11
0
22 --
1
8 --'-1
31
0
429
60.94%
CA11-1028-2011
TUESDAY· OCTOBER 25 201 1 ,
1500PM 1600PM 1700PM
6 6 6
0 0 0
11 11 10
0 1 0
8 5 3 . -
0 0 0
10 9 11
0 0 0
10 9 12 -
0 0 0
20 15 22 ·--
0 0 0
5 8 12
0 0 0
5 6 9 -
0 0 0
10 13 9
1 0 0
11 11 12
0 0 0
17 22 14
0 0 0
9 11 9 . -·
0 0 0
8 9 7
0 0 0
20 14 12
0 0 0
9 10 9
1 0 1
11 r:--10 10 -·--··---·-
0 0 0
12 11 12
1 1 0
12 11 10 . -·-· -
0 0 0
13 13 13
6 6 6
6 6 5
0 1 0
7 10 8 --. --·-------· ---
0 0 0
11 8 9
0 0 0
15 16 14
1 1 1
12 3 8 -----
0 0 0
8 11 6
0 0 0
6 15 19
0 0 0
21 19 16 '----.. --
1 0 0
15 13 0 ----·-· --.. -·-·-
0 1 0
27 18 10
0 0 0
346 334 305
49.15% 47.44% 43 .32%
CA11-102 8-2011
TEMPLE OTY (ON-STREET PARKING TUES DAY OCTOBE R 25, 20 11
SPACES LOCATION TYPE 1000AM llOOAM 1200PM 1300PM 1400PM 1500PM 1600PM 1700PM
15 61 0 4 4 3 3 2 4 7
13 6 2 1 0 3 2 3 2 1 1
13 63 1 0 5 6 6 5 5 5 -
16 &1 4 3 7 4 8 5 7 12
15 65 5 9 7 6 5 6 7 7
17 66 3 6 6 8 6 5 10 9
17 67 5 1 5 3 4 4 4 4 -.. -
11 68 3 5 2 3 1 3 4 5
11 69 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 ·-
11 70 6 7 11 5 11 8 12 11
11 71 2 4 8 7 5 7 7 7 .
12 72 4 7 5 4 4 3 3 3
12 73 1 3 4 5 4 4 1 1 -·
6 74 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 4
20 75 10 8 7 7 5 6 5 1 .. ------
16 76 3 4 5 7 9 6 4 5
11 77 -6 8 5 8 4 4 2 1 -------
11 78 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
1 1 79 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 --
11 80 6 6 0 2 2 3 6 5
13 81 6 3 8 6 6 5 9 6 -. -·-· --.
13 82 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
13 8 3 3 2 3 4 4 5 2 1 ----·---.. ------
18 84 18 14 12 13 16 9 13 12
19 85 5 2 4 6 3 5 5 3 -
20 86 4 9 12 12 8 13 9 8
13 87 6 6 6 6 6 7 2 3 --·· -_ ... --· ------·
10 88 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4
10 89 1 4 4 4 5 5 4 3 -... ------
15 90 2 B 9 10 7 7 4 6
14 91 5 B 8 10 5 11 8 9 ---· ------· . --·----
12 92 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2
12 93 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 -------· -------------
20 94 11 13 16 1 5 13 10 10 11
18 95 6 8 9 10 9 9 9 6 ---. ·----··--.. -·-
15 96 4 4 11 8 5 1 3 3
12 97 5 7 5 7 1-6 5 6 5 ------·· . -. ---------·-·-
9 9 8 0 3 3 2 1 1 1 0
11 99 5 9 9 5 6 5 2 2 -· ----------. -·. ----------..
11 100 1 1 3 5 3 2 1 2
11 101 7 5 4 3 3 9 8 4 ---. -· . ------. ----. ---
13 102 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 2
13 103 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 -------·----··----------1----· --
18 104 11 8 6 6 9 10 11 u
17 105 8 9 7 9 9 8 9 4 -----· --------------------
14 106 9 8 8 8 7 7 9 7
19 107 7 7 5 7 6 6 6 4 ------· ----... --.. --------. --------
12 108 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 3
12 109 1 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 --------
6 110 1 2 2 5 1 0 3 0
7 111 4 2 5 2 2 1 2 0 -.----------------· ---------· ---· ·--
14 112 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
14 113 1 0 0 0 1 __ .!__ .!.._ 1 -----------·-----. ------·--
18 114 3 1 8 7 10 6 2 6
19 115 3 2 3 ~ 2 3 4 2 ----· --.. --· --
14 116 2 4 3 4 3 4 8 5
18 117 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 2 . ----------· ---·· -· -----------. ---
13 118 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
13 119 3 2 1 3 3 3 1 2 --
120 -----------. -. -----. --
7 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
813 TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED 223 253 28<! 2 90 2&1 253 258 24 2
100% PERCENTAGE OCCUPIED 27.43% 31.12% 31.93% 35.67 % 32.47% 31.12% 31.73% 29.77%
TEMPLE CTIY (OFF-STREET PARKI NG)
SPACES LOCATION TYPE 1200PM 1300PM 1400PM
41 UNMARKED 4 4 3
2 ZONE A HANDICAP 1 1 0
12 UNMARKED 9 10 11
2 ZONE B HANDICAP 0 0 0
14 UNMARKED 14 15 14 --.-
0 ZONEC HANDICAP 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 12 12 11
2 ZONED HANDICAP 1 0 1
15 UNMARKED 15 15 15 .. --·
0 ZONE E HANDICAP 0 0 0
54 UNMARKED 50 50 31 .. -
0 ZONE F HANDICAP 0 0 0
22 UNMARKED 22 22 18
0 ZONEG HANDICAP 0 0 0
27 UNMARKED 24 24 24 -···---.
2 ZONE H HANDICAP 2 2 1
24 UNMARKED 24 24 24 -. -
2 ZONE I HANDICAP 2 2 0
24 UNMARKED 24 24 21
0 ZONEJ HANDICAP 0 0 0
26 UNMARKED 26 26 24
2 ZONEK HANDICAP 2 2 2
12 UNMARKED 12 12 7 ----
2 ZONE L HANDICAP 2 2 1
13 UNMARKED 13 13 11
0 ZONE M HANDICAP 0 0 0
30 UNMARKED 26 26 20
0 ZONE N HANDICAP 0 0 0
23 UNM AR KED 20 20 ~~ -----
3 ZONEO HANDICAP 3 3 2
lO UNMARKED 28 29 16 ... .. --------I----0 ZONE P HAND iCAP 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 12 12 12
2 ZONEQ HANDICAP 1 1 1
17 UNMARKED 15 15 14 --··. --
0 ZONE R HANDICAP 0 0 0
13 UNMARKED 13 13 12
6 ZONES CHASE 6 6 6
6 UNMARKED 6 6 6
2 ZONET HANDICAP 2 2 1
12 UNMARKED 11 11 10 --··----------
0 ZONEU HANDICAP 0 0 0
12 UNMARKED 11 12 12
0 ZONEV HANDICAP 0 0 0
16 UNMARKED 15 15 16
1 ZONEW HANDICAP 0 0 0
13 UNMARKED 13 13 13 --· --
0 ZONE X HANDICAP 0 0 0
11 UNMARKED 11 11 11
2 ZONEY HANDICAP 1 1 0
23 UNMARKED 15 15 19
1 ZONE Z-1 HANDICAP 0 0 0
30 UNMARKED 17 17 17 -· -------------
5 ZONE Z-2 HANDICAP 0 0 0
17 UNMARKED 1 1 1 -------------..
2 ZONE Z-3 HANDICAP 0 0 0
102 UNMARKED 1 1 1
3 ZONEZ-4 HANDICAP 0 0 0
704 TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED 487 490 42 7
100% PERCENTAG E OCCUPIED 69 .18% 69.60% 60.65%
1SOOPM
4
0
12
0
15
0
12
0
13
0
21
0
12
0
17
1
20 ..
1
23
0
22
1
8
1
10
0
16
0
8 -
0
16 ----
0
3
0
12 -
0
11
6
6
0
10 ----· ---
0
12
0
16
0
12 -··
0
10
0
16
0
15
~----
0
1
0
1
0
364
51.70%
1600PM
4
0
12
0
15
0
12
0
13
0
20
0
11
0
19 --
1
19
1
22
0
23
1
8 --
1
10
0
14
0
7
0
CAll-1028-2011
SATURDAY· OCTOBER 29 2011 I
1700PM 1BOOPM 1900PM
15 17 19
0 0 0
10 8 7 -
0 0 0
13 12 13 -
0 0 0
10 4 3
2 0 0
14 11 12 -
0 0 0
14 9 9 -.. --
0 0 0
9 6 7
0 0 0
15 18 18 -
0 0 0
15 23 22 -
0 0 0
17 21 20
0 0 0
26 19 19
0 0 0
6 7 7 --
0 0 0
6 9 8
0 0 0
4 1 1
0 0 0
7 16 17 __ ,_ 1.-----
1 1
17 25 25 c-14 ·-----· ----
0 0 0 0
4 3 0 0
0 0 0 0
11 8 1 0 ---. ---.
0 0 0 0
11 7 9 8
6 2 2 2
6 1 3 3
0 0 0 0
9 7 9 B --------------0 0 0 0
12 11 11 11
0 0 0 0
15 11 10 11
0 0 0 0
12 11 12 12 ·----
0 0 0 0
10 5 11 11
0 0 1 1
15 19 8 6
0 0 0 0
1"1 8 5 5 --·-· ---
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 ·----------
0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
354 295 290 288
50.28% 41.90% 41.19% 40.91%
TEMPLE em (ON-STREET PARKING)
SPACES LOCATION TIPE 1200PM 1300PM l'IOOPM
15 61 10 8 7
13 62 'I 5 4
13 63 8 7 7 -
16 64 16 14 5
15 65 11 9 7
17 66 17 1'1 7
17 67 10 9 7
11 68 8 6 8
11 69 3 5 4 -·
14 70 12 14 11
11 71 9 9 9 ·-
12 72 8 8 8
12 73 5 7 7
6 74 7 6 1
20 75 12 14 12 -
16 76 B 7 5
ll 77 5 6 2
11 78 6 6 5
11 79 5 3 1
11 80 8 7 'I
13 81 14 13 7 -~
13 82 1 3 2
13 83 1 2 3 ----
18 84 13 13 13
19 85 -10 13 5
20 86 16 18 13
13 87 10 7 5
10 88 4 5 6
10 89 6 5 7 -
15 90 11 11 12
14 91 11 9 12 -
12 92 1 1 2
12 93 0 0 0 -----
20 94 14 16 14
18 95 7 6 7 -------··-. ------
15 96 13 9 B
12 97 9 7 8 -------
9 98 2 4 3
11 99 4 5 6 --~ ----
11 100 1 3 3
11 101 'I 3 4 ---
13 102 2 2 1
13 103 4 4 4 --------
18 104 12 14 12
17 105 5 7 6 -. ----···--
14 106 11 9 11
19 107 3 4 5 -----·-----· -~ --.
12 108 2 2 1
12 109 2 1 2 ------
6 110 0 1 0
7 111 0 0 2 -------------
14 112 2 3 3
14 113 2 4 4 -----------------
18 114 11 6 9
19 us 2 2 2 ----· --· -----
14 116 9 4 2
18 117 2 1 2 -. -----·-----------
13 118 1 1 1
13 119 4 3 6 --------· -
7 120 1 0 0
813 TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED 399 385 334
100% PERCENTAGE OCCUPIED 49.08% 47.36% 41.08%
1500PM 1600PM
6 5 -
3 3
4 2
8 7
8 7 -
6 3
7 5
8 7
3 3 -
12 12
11 'I
5 4
5 4
1 2
15 15 -
3 3
4 J
5 5
1 1
3 0
s 7
2 2
5 2 ... --·
10 11
7 14
14 12
5 4
6 6
7 4 -
11 7
4 7
1 1
0 0
8 7
7 6 -
5 1
8 8 ---2 3
5 5 ------
1 1
1 3
2 2
4 3 ----
17 16
5 6
~-~
8 11
3 3 -----
1 2
1 2 --
0 0
0 0 --
2 1
1 1 -----
4 5
3 2 -
3 1
2
CAll-1028-2011
SATURDAY· OC10BE R 29 201 1 '
1700PM 1800PM 1900PM
5 7 'I
3 4 3
2 5 6
6 11 5
8 9 9 -
10 9 7
'I 4 10
~
7 5 6
3 6 5 -..
12 9 7
8 10 10
3 5 5
5 8 7 -
3 2 2
10 10 8 ...
'I 5 3
1 7 6
8 8 3
3 3 3 ..
0 1 5
5 13 13 -
3 2 2
1 0 0 -
11 11 10
5 6 10 --
11 8 12
4 4 7
6 5 6
4 4 'I --
4 5 9
5 11 10 -------
1 1 1
1 1 1 ----. ---
8 13 15
6 10 8 ---· --
0 3 10
7 6 7 --------
5 1 0
9 2 1 ---
0 0 0
0 1 0 ----~-----· -----
2 1 1
3 3 4 ---
10 6 7
7 7 5 -------~ ·--
10 7 11
5 5 3 -··-. ------·-
3 3 1
3 1 2 ·--
0 0 0
0 0 0 -------.. --
1 1 1
2 1 2 -----~ -. -·-
7 5 3
3 2 2 --·
2 3 2
2 0 3 ~-·-----·------~-·-
1 0 1 1 1
5 5 4 4 5 ----· ------------
0 0 0 0 0
294 266 266 285 293
36.16% 32.72% 32.72% 35.06% 36.04%
~
SEE
EXHIBrT 1
Not to Scale
~
• -::D • On-Street Par!tlng Count Lo<aUon
~-OII..Slteet Par!ting Countloeahon
Temple City Downtown Parking Data Collection Locations-Aerial 2 of 2
0Cfl20tl Exh ibit 2
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: JULY 28, 2009
TO : PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOSEPH M. LAMBER-r_/L
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
BY: I HESTY LIU ;....}.).._.__.,
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
REPORT ON: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A FULL SERVICE
RESTAURANT AT 9608-9610Y2 LAS TUNAS DRIVE. THE
BUSINESS SPECIALIZES IN TAIWANESE CUISINE AND
PROPOSES TO SERVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ONSITE
(BEER AND WINE). THE PROPOSED MAXIMUM CAPACITY IS
140 SEATS AND THE PROPOSED BUSINESS HOURS ARE
FROM 11 :00 AM TO 12:30 AM, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK .
PURSUANT TO THE ZONING REGULATION , A RESTAURANT
ESTABLISHMENT AND ON-SALE ALCOHOLIC CONSUMPTION
BOTH REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL. THE
SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY CENTER
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (CC) AREA OF THE DOWNTOWN
SPECIFIC PLAN .
PROJECT SITE : 9608-9610 Y2 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-1740
PROPERTY OWNER: WYNN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.
10722 BEVERLY BLVD ., SUITE P
WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA 90601
APPLICANT: TERENCE KWOK
260 E GARVEY AVE.
MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA 91754
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Zoning:
General Plan:
Lot: Overall
5500 s.f.
CC, City Center Commercial District of the Downtown Specific Plan
General Commercial
Width
55 '
Depth
110'
Shape and Characteristics
rectangular and level
Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit 09-17 40
9608, 9610, 9610~ Las Tunas Drive
Public Improvements:
Environmental Review:
Previous Actions :
Pending Actions:
Background:
Page2
Existing sidewalk, curb and gutter
Negative Declaration
None
Approval of ABC License, building plan check for the
tenant improvement plans and building permit
issuance
The subject property is located in the City's downtown commercial district, on the south
side of Las Tunas Drive, between Temple City Boulevard and Camellia Avenue. The
site contains a land area of approximately 5,500 square feet and has been improved
with a single-story commercial building of approximately 4,000 square feet. The
commercial building has a street frontage of 55 feet and contains three commercial
units, all of which are currently vacant. The site is within the City Center (CC)
commercial district of the Downtown Specific Plan.
Parking is provided in the public parking lot behind the building. A total of 57 spaces
are provided, which are shared by all businesses on the same block. The parking lot
starts midblock and extends toward the west, where it abuts Temple City Boulevard.
Vehicular access is taken from two driveways on Temple City Boulevard (one ingress ,
one egress), and one ingress/egress driveway on Camellia Avenue. There is also a
mid-block alley running south and linking the parking lot to Workman Avenue.
By the time this proposal was received, another applicant submitted a conditional use
permit application for a restaurant (Kang Kang Food Court) on the same block,
approximately two storefronts to the east. Because the two projects were submitted
almost concurrently, Staff reviewed the two projects together. To assess the traffic
impact, each project was required to conduct a traffic/parking impact study. And to
assess the cumulative impacts, each traffic study has to take into account the impact(s)
of the other. Such requirement has been reflected in the methodology and analysis
adopted in the submitted traffic studies. (Please refer to the traffic study attached
hereto)
Proposed Development:
The proposed project is a full service restaurant which specializes in Taiwanese cuisine
(a specific type of Chinese cuisines). The restaurant also proposes to serve beer and
wine for consumption on the premises . The business will occupy all three vacant units
on the subject site which has a total floor area of approximately 4,000 square feet. The
\\TEMPLE2 K\Apps\Word\Department\CDD\RPTS\Pianning\Pianning Commission\Condilional Use Permits (CUP)\2 009 CUP\PC
Staff Report -CUP 09-1740, 9608, 961 O_half Las Tunas Dr (Restaurant_ Terence).doc
Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit 09-17 40
9608, 9610, 9610% Las Tunas Drive Page 3
applicant is proposing a maximum of 140 seats for inside dining. The proposed hours of
operation are from 11 :00 am to 12:30 am, seven days a week.
The submitted tenant improvement plan features 17 tables of various sizes for inside
dining, and the dining area constitutes roughly half of the total floor area. The remaining
area contains a new kitchen, two ADA compliant bathrooms, and food storage/food
preparation spaces. Exterior renovation is also part of the tenant improvement plan .
Analysis:
The proposed project is consistent with its land use designation and is listed as a
conditional allowable use by the city's Downtown Specific Plan Land Use Matrix. The site
is in the City Center (CC) commercial district of the Downtown Specific Plan area where
use-based parking standards are exempt. In this case , even though the proposed
restaurant will have a higher parking demand based on the City's normal parking
standards , the Specific Plan does not require additional parking in the CC District. In
addition , the Specific Plan encourages restaurant uses and has incentives for a "quality
restaurant" including up to a 20% reduction on required on-site parking spaces and
expeditious processing of approvals/permits, if applicable . (Refer to Downtown Specific
Plan IV-II G. Restaurant Development Incentives)
A "quality restaurant" is defined as a full service restaurant with a banquet facility . The
proposed use, though not being proposed with banquet facility, is a full service restaurant.
Therefore the use is considered consistent with the policies and goals of the Downtown
Specific Plan.
One particular concern about the project is the potential parking and traffic impacts .
Although the Downtown Specific Plan exempts the requirement of additional parking for
an intensified business or restaurant in the CC District, the limited parking supply in this
district could result in future parking shortages. Using the city's standards parking
calculations, this project requires a significant increase in the parking because a
restaurant is required to provide 10 spaces/per 1000 square feet floor area, as compared
to 4 spaces/per 1 000 square feet floor area for a general retail store . As a result , with the
same 4,000 square foot floor area, a restaurant would be required 24 more spaces than a
retail store .
To assess the potential traffic impacts and potential parking impacts , a traffic
study/parking analysis was conducted for the business. The study includes collected data
on the inventory of the existing on-street and off-street parking spaces, as well as the
occupancy rates of the parking spaces on weekdays and weekends. Using the shared
parking concept, the study suggests that with only the proposed full service restaurant,
parking demand will exceed supply by three (3) spaces around 12:00 pm during a
weekday. However, when considering the other proposed restaurant project (Kang Kang
\\TEMP LE2 K\Apps\Word\Oepa rtmen\\CDO\RPTS\Piann ing\Pia n ning Commission\Conditional Use Perm its (CUP)\2009 CU P\P C
Staff Report -CUP 09-1740, 9608, 9610_halfLas Tunas Or (Rest aurant_Terence).doc
Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit 09-1740
9608 , 9610, 9610% Las Tunas Drive Page4
fast food restaurant}, the projected parking deficit on a weekday will be seven spaces at
approximately 1:00pm and six spaces at approximately 8:00pm , respectively. The study
projects no parking deficit during the weekend . (Note: the parking deficit is projected as
15 spaces in the other project)
To mitigate the parking deficiency, the study recommends valet parking service during the
projected peak hours. The study also recommends that the valet parking service be a
joint effort with the other fast food restaurant.
After reviewing the study, the City's consultant for traffic engineering recommends two
conditions if the project will be approved:
1. A parking mitigation plan shall be submitted prior to opening (of the business),
which would mitigate any problems associated with the restaurant land uses;
and
2. At the time of each project(s) opening, review the on -site parking demand and
re-evaluate the situation approximately nine months after opening . If at either
time the p (Peak time) parking (deficiency) is determined to exist , a parking
mitigation plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the City.
Staff further recommends off-site employee parking as a condition of approval, as in the
case of Kang Kang Food Court. Considering the nature of the other restaurant as more
of a fast food restaurant and its particular clientele, the staff does not support the idea
that the valet parking service should be a joint venture. Rather, this restaurant should
provide their own valet parking service.
In compliance with the City's in-lieu parking fee policy, staff recommends a $4 ,000 annual
in lieu parking fee for this business. This number suggested is based on the scale of the
business as compared with other restaurants previously approved. For instance , in an
approved full -service restaurant which has 5,000 square feet floor area and 154 seats , a
$5,000 annual in-lieu parking fee was imposed by the Planning Commission .
Considering the 4,000 square foot floor area and 140 seats for this restaurant, Staff feels
that the $4,000 burden is comparable to fees for similar restaurants.
To grant a conditional use permit, the Zoning Code requires three findings:
1. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size , shape, topography and
circumstances; and
2. The site has sufficient access to streets and highways, adequate in width
and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of the traffic
generated by the proposed use.
\\TEMPLE2K'Apps\Word\Department\CDD\R PTS\Piannmg\Pi anni ng Commis sion\C onditional Use Pe rm its (CUP)\200 9 CUP \PC
Staff Report -CUP 09-1740. 9606 , 9610_half Las Tunas Dr (Re staurant_Tere nce).d oc
Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit 09-1740
9608, 9610, 9610Yz Las Tunas Drive Page 5
3 . The proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon the use,
enjoyment or valuation of adjacent or neighboring businesses or upon the
public welfare .
Having previously discussed land use compatibility and potential impacts of the project,
Staff feels that the proposed project is essentially a compatible use for the subject site .
The site is an existing commercial building in the City's busiest business district, and
the public parking lots have sufficient access via the surrounding streets. The potential
negative parking impacts have been evaluated in the traffic/parking impact study, and
mitigation measures have been recommended .
Staff feels that the lack of on-site parking is a common challenge that faces many
small-town main street projects . The geographic constraints that come with the original
development patterns and smaller sized properties hinder the ability of many cities to
cope with accommodating modern businesses in older commercial districts. Although
there is always a chance that the impacts go beyond the projections mentioned the
mitigation plan recommended by the City's traffic engineering consultant will ensure that
the actual impacts can be monitored and addressed. With the City 's strong interest in
economic development as well as the revitalization effort in the downtown commercial
districts, Staff recommends approval of the project.
Recommendation:
Adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Conditional Use Permit 09-1740, based upon
the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the draft Resolution.
Attachments: 1. Staff Draft Resolution
2. Application
3. Negative Declaration
4. Environmental Checklist
5. Environmental Discussion
6. Traffic Study
7. Downtown Specific Plan 11132-35,1V 11-13
8. Vicinity Map
9. Land Use Map
10 . Aerial Photo
\\TEMPLE2K\Apps\Word\Departmenl\CDD\RPTS\Pianning\Pianning Commission\Conditional Use Permits (CUP)\2009 CUP\PC
Staff Report-CUP 09-1740, 9608, 961 O_half Las Tunas Dr (Restaurant_ Terence).doc
RESOLUTION NO. 09-2281 PC
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMPLE CITY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09 -1740 TO ALLOW
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT AT 9608, 9610, &
9610% LAS TUNAS DRIVE . THE SITE IS DESIGNATED AS CITY CENTER
(CC) COMMERCIAL ON THE CITY'S DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND
USE MAP. (TERENCE KWOK) (CUP 09-1740)
The Planning Commission of the City of Temple City does hereby resolve:
SECTION 1 . Based upon a Public Hearing for the above Conditional Use Permit,
the Planning Commission hereby finds :
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape, topography and
circumstances to sustain the proposed use in that the subject site is a developed
commerc ial site with a land area of approximately 5,500 square feet and a
bu ilding floor area of approximately 4,000 square feet; both of which are large
enough to accommodate the proposed use ; and
2. That the site does have sufficient access to streets and highways, adequate in
width and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by
the proposed use in that the site can be accessed directly by three streets and
will utilize a 57 -space public parking lot for parking . Two of the three streets
abutting the site, Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard, are major
thoroughfares in the city which shall provide adequate access to the site. The
public parking lots in the vicinity, along with the conditions to mitigate
traffic/parking impacts , should accommodate the parking demand generated by
the proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon the use, enjoyment
or valuation of adjacent property or upon the public welfare in that the proposed
use is identified as a compatible land use for the site which is comparable and
complementary to the vision and goals of the Downtown Specific Plan.
SECTION 2. This project should not result in significant effects upon the
environment, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared and is hereby adopted in
accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The initial statement as prepared
indicates there is no potential for adverse impact to the environment as it relates to all
wild animals , birds, plants , fish , amphibians, and related ecological communities,
including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability .
SECTION 3 . Accordingly , Conditional Use Permit 09-1740 is approved based
upon the following conditions:
Resolution 09-2281 PC
Conditional Use Permit 09-1740
9608, 9610, 9610Y2las Tunas Drive
Page2
1. The proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the
submitted floor plan date stamped April 28, 2009, except modified
hereinafter.
2. All applicable permits shall be obtained for the work proposed on the
tenant improvement plans.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits, any plans to change the front and/or
rear building factade(s) shall be reviewed by the Community Development
Department through the Site Plan Review process . Said plans shall be
subject to the design review guidelines of the Downtown Specific Plan.
4. The hours of operation for the business shall be limited to 11:00 a.m. to
11 :00 p.m. daily.
5. No less than 6 months and no more than 9 months from commencement
of operation of this restaurant use, Staff shall cause a report to be brought
forth to the Planning Commission that indicates any negative impacts that
may be associated with this use, specifically regarding parking , noise,
and/or hours of operation . If the Planning Commission feels that it is
necessary to review this approval and potentially impose additional
conditions of approval based on the aforementioned concerns, then the
applicant agrees that the Planning Commission reserves the right to
cause a public hearing(s) to be scheduled to address said concerns, and
additional conditions of approval may be imposed at that time. The
Planning Commission could require the implementation of additional
conditions of approval such as a traffic/parking mitigation plan, and/or a
valet parking plan, as may be recommended by the City's traffic
engineering consultant.
6. There shall be a maximum of 140 seats for inside dining. No outside
dining is approved as a part of this application. If in a future date outside
dining is desired, the arrangement and number of seats shall first be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department.
7. A $4,000 in-lieu parking fee shall be paid on an annual basis to the City of
Temple City. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a business license
and shall be paid annually prior to subsequent business license renewals.
If said in-lieu parking fee is not paid as stated, the City may revoke this
conditional use permit approval.
8. A license shall be obtained from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control for the onsite consumption of beer and wine prior to the operation
of the business . Liquor sales are not allowed as part of this approval.
Resolution 09-2281 PC
Conditional Use Permit 09-1740
9608, 9610 , 9610Y2 Las Tunas Drive
Page 3
9 . All signage for the business shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Department prior to installation .
10 . The business operator shall ensure that all employee-parking occurs in
the northernmost public parking lot located on Primrose Avenue .
11. Unless waived by the City's traffic engineering consultant, the business
operator shall offer valet parking as a permanent service .
12. The granting body (the Planning Commission) shall reserve the power of
revocation of this approval and/or the power to impose additional
conditions of approval if this establishment proves to create a significant
traffic or parking problem which is beyond the projection of the
traffic/parking study prepared for the project.
13. The applicant shall receive necessary approvals from the Los Angeles
County Health Department prior to opening for business. The proposed
use shall be in full compliance with all applicable health and safety
standards, as well as all of the Los Angeles County Industrial Waste
requirements .
14. All activities and functions of the site shall be subject to the City's Noise
Ordinance . Any violation of the City's Noise Ordinance as contained in
Section 9280-9282.1 shall be grounds for revocation of this conditional
use permit.
15. The business owner/property owner shall be responsible for controlling
loitering and other conduct of individuals on the premises.
16 . The Conditions of Approval contained in this Resolution may be enforced
by the Sheriff's Office as well as City Staff. Any violation of any condition
is a misdemeanor and may be processed directly by criminal complaint.
17. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire 24 months from the date of
approval if said approval is not exercised within that time. If the
project is not commenced prior to the expiration date, the applicant
may apply in writing for an extension of time at least forty (40) days
before the expiration date.
18. This Resolution shall not become valid until such time that the
applicant and business owner has signed a copy of the Resolution
acknowledging acceptance of the Conditions of Approval.
City o£ Temple City
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
PROJECT TITLE
Conditional Use Permit 09-1740
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, California 91780
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Joseph M . Lambert, Community Development Manager
(626) 285-2171
PROJECT LOCATION
9608-9610 I /2 Las Tunas Drive, Temple City, CA 91780
PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNER:
Wynn Property Management Inc
10722 Beverly Blvd. Suite P
Monterey Park, CA 91754
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Commercial
ZONING
CC, Center Commercial
APPLICANT:
Terence K wok
260 E Garvey A venue
Monterey Park , CA 91754
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project,
and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary).
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT AT 9608-9610~ LAS TUNAS DRIVE.
THE BUSINESS SPECIALIZES IN TAIWANESE CUISINE AND PROPOSES TO SERVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ONSITE
(BEER AND WINE). THE PROPOSED MAXIMUM CAPACITY IS 140 SEATS AND THE PROPOSED BUSINESS HOURS
ARE FROM 11:00 AM TO 12:30 AM , SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. PURSUANT TO THE ZONING REGULATION, A
RESTAURANT ESTABLISHMENT AND ON-SALE ALCOHOLIC CONSUMPTION BOTH REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT APPROVAL. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY CENTER COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (CC) AREA OF
THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN .
OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED)
Building Department Approval on Tenant Improvement Plan and Issuance of Business License
City of Temple City
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
S ignificant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a . Conflict with general plan designation or D D D g
zoning
b. Conflict with applicable environmental D D D g
plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
c. Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 D 0
(e .g. impacts to soils or fannlands , or
impacts from incompatible land uses?
d . Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement D D 0
of an established community (including a
low income or minority community?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or D D 0 \12(
local population projects?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either D D 0 {21'
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure?
c. Displace existing housing, especially 0 0 0
affordable housing?
3. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving :
a . Seismicity: fault rupture? D 0 0 'J2t
b. Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? D 0 0 a
c. Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? 0 D 0 ~
d. Landslides or mudslides? D 0 0 g/ e. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable 0 0 D
soil conditions from excavation, grading or
till?
f. Subsidence of the land? D D D \0
g. Expansive soils? 0 D D e(
h. Unique geologic or physical features? D 0 0 a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
4 . WATER Would the proposal result:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 D D 'QI
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
b. Exposure of people or prope1ty to water 0 0 D ca'
related hazards such as flooding?
~ c. Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0
alterations of surface water quality (e .g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in 0 0 D ct
any water body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or 0 D D ·cr
direction of water movements? tz( f. Changes in the quantity of ground either D 0 D
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 D D ~
groundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? D D D ~ i. Storm water system discharges from area 0 0 0
for materials storage, vehicle or equipment
fueling , vehicle or equipment maintenance
(including washing), waste handling,
hazardous materials handling or storage
delivery or loading docks, or other outdoor
work area?
j. A significantly environmentally hannful 0 0 0
increase in the flow rate or volume of storm
water runoff?
k. A significantly environmentally hannful 0 0 0 12('
increase in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas? ~ I. Storm water discharges that would 0 0 0
significantly impair the beneficial uses of
receiving waters or areas that provide water
quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors,
wetlands, etc.)?
m. Harm to the biological integrity of drainage 0 D 0
systems and water bodies?
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
5 . AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal :
a. Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? D D 0 0
c. Alter air movement, moisture, or D 0 0 ti
temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
d. Create objectionable odors? D 0 0
6 . TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in :
a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 D q D
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. 0 0 0 'Q1
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to D 0 D '&i uearby uses? ~ d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-D 0 D
site?
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 \jzj
bicyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 D D d
alternative transportation (e .g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts to:
a . Endangered, threatened or rare species or 0 0 0
their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g . heritage 0 0 D 'Cl
trees)?
c. Locally designated natural communities 0 D 0 'Q(
(e.g. oak forest, costal habitat, etc.)?
'fi d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and 0 0 0
vernal pool) ?
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Potent ially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e . Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 D tz(
8 . ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservational 0 0 0 ~
plans?
b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful D D D d
and inefficient manner?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b . Possible interference with an emergency 0 D 0
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or D 0 D ~ potential health hazard?
d . Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 D Lf
potential health hazards?
e. Increased fire hazard areas in areas with 0 0 D \L(
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in :
a. Increases in existing noise levels? 0 D ti D
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 ti
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered government services in any
of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? D D 0 0
b. Police protection? 0 0 0 'e:(
c. Schools? D D 0 0
d . Maintenance of public facilities, including D 0 0 0
roads?
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Potentia lly Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e . Other governmental services? D 0 D ~
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
resu It in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities?
a . Power or natural gas? 0 D D tzr
b . Communications systems? 0 0 0 ef
c. Local or regional water treatment or 0 D D [J'
distribution facilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? D D 0 0
e . Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 0
f . Solid waste disposal? 0 D 0 \I2J
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a . Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? D 0 0 tzf
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 D 0 f2I'
c. Create light or glare? 0 D D ~
14. CULTURAL RESOUCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources? 0 D D 0'
b. Disturb archaeological resources? D D D \[L1
c . Affect historical resources? D D D 0
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change D 0 0 (2(
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within 0 D 0
the potential impact area?
15 . RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a . Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 D 0
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 D 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade D 0 0
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat offish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the rang of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve D 0 0
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that are D 0 0
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects).
d. Does the project have environmental effects D 0 D
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Fast Food Restaurant: 9608-9610% Las Tunas Drive
CUP 09-1740
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1
50. AIR QUALITY: A light odor from the kitchen of the proposed restaurant is
anticipated. The project is also expected to generate more traffic than the existing
level. However, neither impact is expected to significantly affect the air quality of
the area.
6A, 6D.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION : The increased demand on the onsite
parking and the increased traffic are both anticipated for the project. Also, another
fast food restaurant is proposed on the same block which together will generate
cumulative impacts. A traffic study was prepared for the project which had taken
into account the cumulative effect of the two projects. The result of the study
indicates that the increased traffic will not significantly affect the service levels at
the two adjacent street intersections; however, the on-site parking will potentially
become inadequate during certain peak operation hours of the restaurant.
To mitigate the problem, the study suggests that valet parking service should be
provided during the peak hours of the business or when on-site parking becomes
problematic. In addition, after reviewing the traffic study, the city's traffic
engineering consultant recommends a traffic mitigation plan for the project and a
pre-and post-project evaluation system. Further, staff will recommend two more
measures which require off-site employee parking and time restrictive parking
spaces in the parking lot as conditions of approval. With such measures, staff feels
that the potential parking deficit could be mitigated.
10A. Noise: The post project noise level could be slightly increased in the area due to
the increased traffic and business activities attracted by the business. However,
the noise impact will not have a direct impact on the noise-sensitive land uses
such as residential properties. The subject site is a commercial location in the
City's Center Commercial District and is surrounded by similar land uses. The
noise impact will be primarily limited to the commercial district. In addition, the
City's noise ordinance has provisions to safeguard compliance of project with the
noise limit. Violations will subject the business to citations and in this case, could
cause its Conditional Use Permit if the City determines that compliance could not
be retained.
\\TEMPLE2K\Apps\Word\Department\COD\FORM\Pianning\CEQA\Environmental Discussions\ENV
DISCUSSION, 9608, 9610, 9610_halflas Tunas Dr(restaurant_Terence Kwock}.doc
. {
~ ~ . ' ~ '
' l
' ! . )
t !: .
;} ~ 1 l t ..
~ , .
:! J
.
t. ' ~ ;
• .I . ~
• ·~ i· • l ~
J. 1 I
r. i .. J .1 ' .
~ ' ' ~ r: •
f ~ t
l •
k
J } . I .
l if •' i . ·i-j' .~ ~ t:
' '
PARJaNGIMPACTSTUDY
QUALITY RESTAURANT
9608-9610~ LAS TUNAS DRIVE
TEMPLE CITY, CALlFORNIA
Prepared for
CHUANYONG
9608 Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, CA 91780
Prepared by
TRAFFIC DESIGN, INC.
862 Canterbury Lane
San Dimas, CA 91773
Phone : 626~826~7560
Email : myrahi@msn.com
Under the Supervision of:
M . Yunus Rahi, Ph.D., P .E
Revised
June 4, 2009
TDI2009~02/MYR
REVISED
TITLE
PARKING IMPACT STUDY
QUALITY RESTAURANT
9608-9610~ LAS TUNAS DRIVE
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA
PAGE
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
Project Description ............................................................................................... 1
Existing Parking Demand ..................................................................................... 4
Parking Needs for Proposed Project .................................................................... 7
Other Projects' Parking Needs ........................................................................... 10
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 12
TABLES
NO. TITLE PAGE
1. Parking Inventory and Occupancy-Friday, April24, 2009 .......................... 5
2. Parking Inventory and Occupancy-Saturday, April25, 2009 ...................... 6
3 . Hourly Parking Availability and Demand for Restaurant Use ..................... 9
4. Parking Availability and Demand for Other Restaurant Projects .............. 11
FIGURES
NO. TITLE PAGE
1. Project Location and Vicinity ...................................................................... 2
2. Existing Parking Areas for the Project... ..................................................... 3
APPENDIX
Field Data Collection Forms and Pictures of Existing Parking Conditions
Parking Impact Study: Quality Restaurant, Temple City
April 28 , 2009
Page iii
PAREJNGIMPACTSTUDY
QUALITY RESTAURANT
9608-961 0~ LAS TUNAS DRIVE
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to review parking conditions at the existing public parking
lot located behind existing business on the south side of Las Tunas Drive between
Temple City Boulevard and Camelia Avenue in the City of Temple City . The applicant is
proposing to convert existing retail uses at 9608-961 OYz Las Tunas Drive into a quality
restaurant with a gross floor area of 3,976 square feet. Since parking demand for a
restaurant is different and greater than that of retail uses, it is necessary to evaluate the
adequacy of available parking spaces for use by the patrons of the proposed restaurant.
This study provides an evaluation of existing parking conditions in the parking lot as well
as in the immediate vicinity of the proposed restaurant, an inventory of available parking
spaces, a count of hourly occupancy of the parking spaces by the patrons of existing
businesses, an estimate of hourly parking demands by the patrons of proposed
restaurant, and a determination of parking adequacy for the operation of the restaurant.
The existing parking occupancy conditions and demand for proposed restaurant use
have been determined for a typical weekday and a typical weekend operating hours of
the proposed restaurant.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed quality sit-down restaurant will occupy existing retail uses located at 9608
through 9610Yzlas Tunas Drive in the City of Temple City. The site is located on the
south s ide of Las Tunas Drive between Temple City Boulevard and Camelia Avenue .
Parking Impact Study: Quolity Restaurant, Temple City
April 28. 2009
Page 1
EXISTING PARKING DEMAND
To determine existing parking conditions at the public parking lot as well as adjacent on-
street parking areas, parking occupancy counts were conducted dur ing a typical
weekday and a weekend. The occupancy counts were conducted on Friday, April 24,
2009 and Saturday, April 25, 2009. To estimate existing hourly parking demands during
the project's proposed operating hours, the counts were taken each hour between the
hours of 11:00 AM and 11 :00 PM on both days.
Table 1 shows details of the parking inventory and occupancy counts conducted on
Friday, April 24, and Table 2 shows details of the parking inventory and occupancy
counts conducted on Saturday, April25, 2009.
The field data collection form used in conducting these parking inventory and
occupancy counts is paced in the Appendix. The Appendix also contains pictures taken
during the counts showing the existing parking conditions near the project.
As indicated in the tables , the public parking lot shows a maximum parking occupancy
of 70% (40 spaces) at 12:00 PM on Friday, and 33% (19 spaces) at 12:00 PM on
Saturday. This corresponds to a minimum vacancy of 17 spaces and 38 spaces in the
parking lot during these peak demand hours . Similarly, on-street parking spaces along
the three adjacent streets combined show a maximum parking occupancy of 57% (35
spaces) twice at 4 :00 PM and at 8:00 PM on Friday, and 56% (34 spaces) at 1:00 PM
on Saturday. This corresponds to a minimum vacancy of 26 spaces and 27 spaces in
the parking lot during these peak demand hours. Parking demands during other hours
along these streets are currently less than these peak parking demands.
Pnrking Impact Study : Quality Restaurant, Temple City
April 28, 2009
Page4
Table 1: Parking Inventory and Occupancy-Friday, April 24, 2009
Number of Number of Occupied Spaces During Various Hours
Paft(lng Area Spaces 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00
AM PM PM PM
Public Lot 27 10 14 8 6 (North Area)
Public Lot 30 25 26 22 21 (South Area)
Total 57 35 40 30 27
Occupancy (%} 61% 70% 53% 47%
Unoccupied 22 17 27 30
Las Tunas Dr 11 6 6 8 7 (Northl
Las Tunas Dr 13 5 5 5 8 (South)
Total 24 11 11 13 15
Occupancy(%) 46% 46% 54% 63%
Unoccupied 13 13 11 9
Temple City Bl
(East) 11 9 8 9 9
Temple City Bl 20 5 7 10 8 (West)
Total 31 14 15 19 17
Occupancy (%) 45% 48% 61% 55%
Unoccupied 17 16 12 14
CameliaAve 2 0 0 0 0 (East)
CameliaAve 4 1 2 1 0 (West)
Total 6 1 2 1 0
Occupancy(%) 17% 33% 17% 0%
Unoccupied 5 4 5 6
On-Street Total 61 26 28 33 32
Occupancy(%) 43% 46% 54% 52%
Unoccupied 35 'li ~ 28 29
Parking Impact Study: Quality Restaurant, Temple City
April 28, 2009
3:00 4 :00 S:OO 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00
PM PM PM PM PM PM PM
5 6 6 6 2 1 0
15 15 12 8 0 2 1
20 21 16 14 2 3 1
35% 37% 32% 25% 4% 5% 2%
37 36 39 43 55 54 56
6 9 6 6 4 9 4
1 11 10 5 4 2 1
7 20 16 11 8 11 5
29% 83 % 67% 46% 33% 46% 21%
17 4 6 13 16 13 19
7 3 3 6 7 7 4
11 10 6 12 16 16 10
18 13 9 18 23 23 14
58% 42% 29% 58% V.~~~ [V4 ' 45%
13 16 22 13 6 8 17
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 2 1 1 1 0
3 2 2 1 1 1 0
50% 33% 33% 17% 17% 17% 0%
3 4 4 5 5 5 6
28 35 27 30 32 35 19
46% 57% 44% 49% 52% 57% 31%
33 26 34 31 29 26 42
10:00 11:00
PM PM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0% 0%
57 57
1 0
1 1
2 1
8% 4%
22 23
4 0
4 1
8 1
26% 3%
23 30
0 0
0 0
0 0
0% 0%
6 6
10 2
16% 3%
51 59
PageS
Table 2: Parking Inventory and Occupancy-Saturday, April 25, 2009
Number of Number of Occupied Spaces During Various Hours
Parking Area Spaces 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00
AM PM PM PM
Public Lot 27 6 10 11 7 (North Area)
Public Lot 30 7 9 6 9 (South Area)
Total 57 13 19 17 16
Occupancy(%) 23% 33% 30% 28%
Unocrupied 44 38 40 41
Las Tunas Dr 11 7 9 B 3 {North}_
Las Tunas Dr 13 7 6 9 10 (South)
Total 24 14 15 17 13
Occupancy(%) 58% 63% 71% 54%
Unoccupied 10 9 7 11
Temple City Bl 11 2 , 7 6 (East)
Temple City Bl 20 9 8 7 11 (West}_
Total 31 11 9 14 17
Occupancy(%) 35% 29% 45% 55%
Unoccupied 20 22 17 14
Camelia Ave 2 0 0 0 0 (East)
CameliaAve 4 2 3 3 2 (Wesl)
Total 6 2 3 3 2
Occupancy(%) 33% 50% 50% 33%
Unoccupied 4 3 3 4
On-Street Total 61 27 27 34 32
Occupancy(%) 44% 44% 56% 52%
Unoccupied 34 34 27 29
Parking Impact Study: Quality Restaurant, Temple City
April 2K. 2009
3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00
PM PM PM PM PM PM PM
B 6 7 5 3 2 2
9 7 7 7 2 2 1
17 13 14 12 5 4 3
30% 23% 25% 21% 9% 7% 5%
40 44 43 45 52 53 54
4 2 1 4 2 2 2
9 5 6 2 1 1 1
13 7 7 6 3 3 3
54% 29% 29% 25% 13% 13% 13%
11 17 17 18 21 21 21
6 2 2 3 5 4 2
8 6 7 7 3 3 2
14 8 9 10 8 7 4
45% 26% 29% 32% 26% 23% 13%
17 23 22 21 23 24 27
0 0 0 0 1 0 0
2 1 1 2 4 4 1
2 1 1 2 5 4 1
33% 17% 17% 33% 83% 67% 17%
4 5 5 4 1 2 5
29 16 17 18 16 14 8
48% 26% 28% 30% 26% 23% 13%
32 45 44 43 45 47 53
10:00 11:00
PM PM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0% 0%
57 57
1 1
0 0
1 1
4% 4%
23 23
0 1
0 0
0 1
0% 3%
31 30
0 0
0 0
0 0
0% 0%
6 6
1 2
2% 3%
60 59
Page6
The field data collection form used in conducting these parking inventory and
occupancy counts is paced in the Appendix . The Appendix also contains pictures taken
during the counts showing the existing parking conditions near the project.
As indicated in the tables, the public parking lot shows a maximum parking occupancy
of 70% (40 spaces) at 12 :00 PM on Friday, and 33% (19 spaces) at 12:00 PM on
Saturday. This corresponds to a minimum vacancy of 17 spaces and 38 spaces in the
parking lot during these peak demand hours. Similarly, on-street parking spaces along
the three adjacent streets combined show a maximum parking occupancy of 57% (35
spaces) twice at 4:00 PM and at 8:00 PM on Friday, and 56% (34 spaces) at 1 :00 PM
on Saturday. This corresponds to a minimum vacancy of 26 spaces and 27 spaces in
the parking lot during these peak demand hours. Parking demands during other hours
along these streets are currently less than these peak parking demands.
PARKING NEEDS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
The project's peak parking demand has been estimated based on the City of Temple
City's current off-street parking requirements. The City's current Municipal Code,
Chapter 1, Zoning Code, Article J. Off Street Parking Requirements (dated April, 2007},
the number of parking spaces required for restaurants, bars, coffee shops, donut shops,
and coffee and/or tea establishments, which provide customer seating, is "1 parking
space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area, but there shall be no less than 10
parking spaces provided. Outside dining areas shall also be included into the gross
floor area .·
Accordingly, for the proposed restaurant which will provide a gross floor area of 3,976
square feet for a total of 142 customer seats, the number of parking spaces required is
40 spaces (Calculation: 3,976/100 = 40). Parking demand for various uses varies
during various hours of their operation. The Urban Land Institute (ULI)'s publication
"Shared Parking", 1983 edition, provides hourly demands of various uses, e.g ., office,
retail, restaurant, hotel, entertainment facility, residential, etc. in tenns of percentage of
Parking Impact Study: Quality Restaurant, Temple City
April 28 , 2009
Page7
their peak parking demand during the day. These hourly percentages are provided for
both Weekday and Weekend (Saturday} operations, and are based on ULI's nationwide
survey of these facilities . These data are widely used by parking consultants, as well as
private and public agencies throughout the United States in determining maximum
parking needs at a facility where parking is shared by various land uses with different
hourly parking demands during the day. For the purpose of this study, these hourly
parking demand (i.e., percentages of peak parking demand) data were used to
determine hourly parking demand for the project using a peak parking demand of 40
spaces as determined by the City's parking code . The project's hourly parking
demands, calculated by using this procedure , has been shown in Table 3 along with the
hourly unoccupied and available parking spaces within the public parking lot as well as
the on-street parking spaces . The table shows that the restaurant's maximum demand
for parking for 40 spaces would occur at 7:00 PM, 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM on weekdays,
and 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM on weekends.
The analysis also shows that with the customer's use of the public lot parking only, the
restaurant's parking needs would be adequately satisfied during most of the hours of
weekdays and weekends, except at 12 :00 PM and 1:00 PM on weekdays. The parking
lot is expected to be full during these two hours with the restaurant in operation, but
there will be a shortage of only 1 and 3 spaces, respectively, during these hours.
However, ample parking spaces would remain unoccupied along both sides of Las
Tunas Drive and these demands for restaurant parking would be adequately satisfied as
customers who would not find a space in public parking would move to park there.
There will still be a minimum of 10 spaces unoccupied under such circumstances.
Should the customers move to park also in unoccupied spaces on Temple City
Boulevard, a minimum of 22 spaces would still be left unoccupied with the operation of
the proposed restaurant during these hours. It was also observed that ample parking
spaces would remain available for additional parking needs in other nearby public
parking lots as well as on-street spaces within a block or two from the proposed
restaurant. Therefore, the proposed restaurant's parking needs would be satisfactorily
met within the available parking areas in the vicinity.
Parking Impact Study: Quality Restaurant, Temple City
April 28. 2009
Page &
Table 3: Hourly Parking Availability and Demand for Restaurant Use
Maximum Pariting Demand for Proposed Restaurant:
No. of Spaces Available Restaurant Pari<ing
(Currently Unoccupied) Demand
Hour of Day Along In Public Along Las Temple %of Peak No. of
Lot Tunas Dr City Bl Demand* Spaces
Weekday
11 :00AM 22 13 17 30% 12
12.00 PM 17 13 16 50% 20
1:00PM 27 11 12 70% 28
2 :00PM 30 9 14 60% 24
3:00PM 37 17 13 60% 24
4:00PM 36 4 18 50% 20
5 :00PM 39 8 22 70% 28
6:00PM 43 13 13 90% 36
7:00PM 55 16 8 100% 40
8:00PM 54 13 8 100% 40
9:00PM 56 19 17 100% 40
10:00 PM 57 22 23 90% 36
11 :00 PM 57 23 30 70% 28
Weekend
11 :00AM 44 10 20 10% 4
12:00 PM 38 9 22 30% 12
1:00PM 40 7 17 45% 18
2:00PM 41 11 14 45% 18
3:00PM 40 11 17 45% 18
4:00PM 44 17 23 45% 18
5:00PM 43 17 22 60% 24
6:00PM 45 18 21 90% 36
7:00PM 52 21 23 95% 38
8:00PM 53 21 24 100% 40
9:00PM 54 21 27 100% 40
10:00 PM 57 23 31 95% 38
11 :00 PM 57 23 30 85% 34
("Source: "Shared Par1<ing •, Urban Land Institute, 1983)
Parking Impact Study: Quality Restaurant, Temple City
April 28, 2009
40
Parking Surplus (No. of Spaces Still
Available With Project)
Using Using Public Using Public
Public Lot Lot and Las Lot, Las Tunas
Only Tunas Dr Only Dr & Temple
City 81
10 23 40
-3 10 26
-1 10 22
6 15 29
13 30 43
16 20 38
11 19 41
7 20 33
15 31 39
14 27 35
16 35 52
21 43 66
29 52 82
40 50 70
26 35 57
22 29 46
23 34 48
22 33 50
26 43 66
19 36 58
9 27 48
1<1 35 58
13 34 58
14 35 62
19 42 73
23 46 76
Page9
OTHER PROJECTS' PARKING NEEDS
The City has informed that there are potentially two other nearby businesses that may
also convert from retail use to restaurant use in near future. These are: 1) 9606 Last
Tunas Drive with 2,500 gross square feet, and 2) 9616 Las Tunas Drive with 3,700
gross square feet. Using the City's parking requirement, these uses would generate a
peak parking demand for an additional 62 spaces should they both operate as quality
sit-down restaurants {Calculation: (3,700 + 2,500) I 100 = 62). The City's parking
requirement for fast-food restaurants is 1 space per 150 gross square feet of floor area
with a minimum of 5 spaces for each such restaurant. Should these other two
restaurants operate as fast food restaurants, their peak parking demands will total 41
spaces (Calculation: (3,700 + 2,500) /150= 41 ).
The hourly parking demands for these projects, calculated by using the same procedure
as the project, has been shown in Table 4 along with the hourly unoccupied and
available parking spaces within the public parking lot as well as the on-street parking
spaces , with the proposed project in operation. The table shows that with these
restaurants operating as quality sit-down restaurants, a maximum shortage of 27
spaces would occur at 8:00 PM on weekdays (less during certain other hours), and a
maximum shortage of 8 spaces would occur at 6:00 PM weekends (less during certain
other hours). However, if these other two restaurants operate as fast-food restaurants,
a maximum shortage of 7 spaces would occur at 1:00 PM on weekdays {less during
certain other hours), and no shortage would occur on weekends.
As it was also observed during the course of this study, ample parking spaces would
remain available for additional parking needs in other nearby public parking lots as well
as on-street spaces within a block or two from the proposed restaurant. Therefore, the
proposed restaurant's parking needs would be satisfactorily met within the available
parking areas in the vicinity (even if two other restaurants open in the vicinity, as
explained in this section).
Parking Impact Study: Quality Restaurant, Temple City
April 28. 2009
Page 10
Table 4: Parking Availability & Demand for Other Restaurant Projects
Maximum Part<ing Demand for Other Proposed 62 Restaurants:
Available Spaces Other Projects (Quality Restaurant)
in Public Lot, Las Parking Demand
Hour of Day Tunas Dr &
~emple City Bl w %of Peak No. of
Project Demand Spaces
Weekday
11 OOAM 40 30% 19
12:00 PM 26 50% 31
1:00PM 22 70% 43
2:00PM 29 60% 37
J·oo PM 43 60% 37
4 :00PM 38 50% 31
5:00PM 41 70% 43
6:00PM 33 90% 56
7:00PM 39 100% 62
8:00PM 35 100% 62
9 :00PM 52 100% 62
10:00 PM 66 90% 56
11:00 PM 82 70% 43
Weekend
11 :00AM 70 10% 6
12:00 PM 57 30% 19
1:00PM 46 45% 28
2 :00PM 48 45% 28
3:00PM 50 45% 28
4 :00PM 66 45% 28
5:00PM 58 60% 37
6:00PM 48 90% 56
7 :00PM 58 95% 59
8:00PM 58 100% 62
9:00PM 62 100% 62
10:00 PM 73 95% 59
11:00 PM 76 85% 53
(• Source: "Shared Parl<ing•, Urban Land Institute, 1983)
Parking Impact Study: Quality Restaurant, Temple City
April 28, 2009
Parking
Surplu&
21
-5
-21
-8
6
7
-2
-23
-23
-27
-10
10
39
64
38
18
20
22
38
21
-8
-1
-4
0
14
23
(Quality); 41 (Fast-food)
Other Projects (Fast food Restaurant)
Parking Demand
%of Peak No. of Parking
Demand Spaces Surplus
30~o 12 28
50% 21 6
70% 29 ~7 ~
60% 25 4
60% 25 18
50% 21 18
70% 29 12
90% 37 -4
100% 41 -2
100% 41 f:6
100% 41 11
90% 37 29
70% 29 53
10% 4 66
30% 12 45
45% 18 28
45% 18 30
45% 18 32
45% 18 48
60% 25 33
90% 37 11
95% 39 19
100% 41 17
100% 41 21
95% 39 34
85% 35 41
Page 11
CONCLUSION
The parking demand analys is for the proposed res taurant at 9608-9610% Las Tunas
Drive shows that the parking demand estimated for the project would be adequately
satisfied by the existing parking spaces available in the public parking lo t and the on-
street parking spaces adjacent to the project. The peak parking demand expected for
the project has been determined to be 40 spaces . It was also observed during the
course of this study, that ample parking spaces would remain available for additional
parking needs in other nearby public parking lots as well as on-street spaces within a
block or two from the proposed restaurant. Therefore, the proposed restaurant's parking
needs would be satisfactorily met within the available parking areas in the vicinity (even
if two other restaurants open in the vicinity, as explained in Other Projects ' Parking
Needs section of this report).
However, the City of Temple City policy on parking requirements indicates that on-street
parking spaces should not be considered as available for a project's parking needs .
Since this project's parking demand analysis shows a shortage of 1 to 3 spaces in the
City parking lot during the noon hours on weekdays, the project owner should prov ide a
valet parking service to mitigate this parking impact during the noon hours, from 12 PM
to 2 PM on weekdays . The valet service should be available for their customers to park
cars at a distant City parking lot where spaces are available.
It should be noted that with two other restaurants proposed to be operated in the same
block as this project and to share the same parking lot, parking shortage would be
expected within the City parking lot from 12 PM to 2 PM as well as from 5 PM to 9 PM
on weekdays, and also from 6 PM to 8 PM on weekends. To mitigate this cumulative
parking impact within the City parking lot, a joint valet parking service should be made
available to customers of these restaurants based on a joint agreement between these
restaurant owners. The parking analysis results prepared for those other restaurants
should form the basis of this valet service agreement between the owners.
Parking Impact Study: Q ua li ty Restaurant, Temp le City
April 2 8. 2009
Page 12
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: JULY 28, 2009
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOSEPH M. LAMBERT~L
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
BY: HESTY LIU }t~
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
REPORT ON: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT
AT 9616·9618 LAS TUNAS DRIVE. THE BUSINESS WILL
PROVIDE A SELECTION OF CHINESE FAST FOOD WITH A
PROPOSED MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF SEVENTY (70) SEATS
FOR INSIDE DINING. THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA FOR THE
BUSINESS IS 4,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE PROPOSED
BUSINESS HOURS WILL BE FROM 7:00 AM TO 12:00 AM ,
SEVEN DAYS A WEEK . THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE
CITY CENTER COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (CC) AREA WITHIN THE
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN .
PROJECT SITE: 9616-9618 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
CASE NO : CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-1738
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
CHIN YU YEH
1115 WHITMORE STREET, #A
MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA 91755
TWEN MA
195 MOUNT OLIVE DRIVE
BRADBURY, CALIFORNIA 91008
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Zoning: CC , City Center Commercial District of the Downtown Specific Plan
General Plan: General Commercial
Lot: Overall Width
4,125s.f. 37 .5'
Public Improvements:
Depth
110'
Shape and Characteristics
rectangular and level
Existing sidewalk, curb and gutter
Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit 09-1738
9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive
Environmental Review:
Previous Actions:
Pending Actions:
Background:
Page 2
Negative Declaration
None
Building plan check for the tenant improvement plans ,
and building permit issuance
The subject property is located in the City's downtown commercial district, on the south
side of Las Tunas Drive between Temple City Boulevard and Camellia Avenue . The site
contains a land area of approximately 4,000 square feet and has been improved with a
single-story, commercial building of approximately 3,750 square feet. The commercial
building has a store frontage of 37.5 Feet and contains two commercial units, one of
which is currently vacant. The site is zoned Center Commercial (CC) on the Downtown
Specific Plan Land Use Map.
Parking is provided in the public parking lot behind the building. A total of 57 spaces are
provided, which are shared by businesses on the same block. The parking lot is located
toward the west and directly abuts Temple City Boulevard. Vehicular access is taken
from the two ingress-or egress-only ramps on Temple City Boulevard, a driveway on
Camellia Avenue, and a mid-block alley running south and linking the parking lot to
Workman Avenue, which is a southerly street marking the very southern edge of the
block.
Proposed Development:
The proposed project will combine and use the two commercial units located on the
subject site for a fast food type restaurant. The business is a recently established
restaurant chain, commonly known as Shau May restaurant or Kang Kang Food Court
which specializes in Chinese fast food .
According to the applicant, the business will provide a moderate number of seats for
inside dining; but up to 80% of the business transactions will be take-out orders. The
business has been established with locations in Monterey Park and Alhambra, and if
the proposed location is approved, it will be the third establishment of this chain in the
San Gabriel Valley.
The submitted tenant improvement plans utilize approximately 35% of the floor area for
inside dining. The proposed maximum capacity is 70 seats and the proposed business
hours are from 7:00 am to 12:00 am, seven days a week. No alcohol sales are
proposed for this operation .
I\TEM PLE2K\A.pps\Word\Department\COO\RPTS\Pianning\Pianning Commlssion\Cond1l1onal Use Perm•ls (CUP}\2009 CUP\PC Staff Report-CUP 09·
1738, 9616,9618 Las Tunas Or (Kang Kang Reslauranl_Twen Ma}.doc
..
Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit 09-1738
9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive Page 3
As part of the project, the applicant proposes to add to the existing floor area, extending
to the rear property line, adding approximately 250 square feet to the floor area of the
building. As a result, the total floor area will be approximately 4,000 square feet after
the expansion.
It should be noted that a request for another restaurant was received shortly after the
submittal of this project. That full service restaurant would occupy three nearby
commercial units on the same block and would utilize the same public parking lot. The
floor area for the full service restaurant will also be approximately 4,000 square feet.
To assess the cumulative traffic impacts associated with both projects, the traffic
studies prepared for each project were required to incorporate the other's potential
impacts into their analyses.
Analysis:
In consideration of a Conditional Use Permit request, the City's Zoning Code requires that
three findings be made:
1. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape, topography and
circumstances; and
2. The site has sufficient access to streets and highways, adequate in width
and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of the traffic
generated by the proposed use .
3. The proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon the use,
enjoyment or valuation of adjacent or neighboring businesses or upon the
public welfare.
The proposed use is designated as a conditionally allowable land use by the City's
Downtown Specific Plan. The site is located on Las Tunas Drive in the City Center
commercial district where restaurants are encouraged. Identifying Las Tunas Drive as
having a small village main street setting, the Specific plan calls for the development of a
traditional, pedestrian·oriented commercial strip. The Specific Plan also recognizes
restaurants as crucial components of a viable and vibrant commercial district, and has
policies to support these uses. For instance, the Specific Plan exempts use-based
parking standards for businesses in the Center Commercial District (where the subject is
JocateQ) and provides incentives for restaurant establishments. (Refer to Downtown
Specific Plan page IV-11).
However, traffic impacts are of particular concern because a restaurant is a use which
typically has a high parking demand. In theory, if we consider that 80% of the business
generated consists of fast food transactions (retail only), then the parking demand for this
location would be increased from 16 spaces to 24 spaces. Although parking is provided
\\TEMPLE2K~pps\Word\Departmenl\COO\RPTS\Pianmng\PiaMing CornmissiOO\Condtttonal Use Permits (C UP)\2 009 CUP\PC Staff Report-CUP 09-
17 38. 9618.9618 Las Tunas Or (Kang Kang Restaurant_ Twen Ma) doc
Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit 09-1738
9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive Page4
in the public parking lot and the number of parking for each individual business is difficult
to quantify, increased demand in the surrounding public parking lot can be anticipated. In
addition, as mentioned earlier, staff received another request for a restaurant on the
same block, which would use the same parking lot. Therefore, the cumulative parking
demand of both projects becomes a major concern. Further, there is at least one vacant
unit exist on the block (9606 Las Tunas Drive) and if that unit is filled, further
intensification of parking demand is expected.
To analyze the potential parking impacts, a traffic engineering professional (KOA
Corporation) was retained by the applicant and a traffic study was conducted for the
project. The study has been reviewed by the City's traffic engineering consultant, Pat
Lang.
The traffic study shows that the adjacent public parking lot is currently under-utilized with
a peak-hour vacancy rate estimated as 54% around 12:00 p.m. on weekdays and 65% on
the weekends. Using the scenario that both restaurants are established, the study
projects that the weekday parking deficit will be 15 spaces around 12:00 p.m . and 4
spaces around 6:00p.m. On the weekend, the parking deficit is projected to be 7 spaces
around 6:00 p.m.
The study also analyzed the Level of Service (LOS) for the two adjacent intersections,
(Las Tunas Dr.!Temple City Blvd . and Las Tunas Dr./Camellia Ave . intersections), and no
change to the post-project LOS levels for the two adjacent intersections is anticipated as
a result of the proposed projects.
In response to the projected parking shortfall, the study recommends two mitigation
measures: Measure No .1 is to install some 20-minute only restrictive parking spaces in
the parking lot near the restaurant. Measure No. 2 recommends that all employee parking
be located off-site in the public parking lot located on Primrose, which is one and a half
blocks away from the subject site, on the north side of Las Tunas Drive. The study also
suggests that there is ample on-street parking in the surrounding streets, and an average
of 33% occupancy rate is observed among the total 69 spaces of on-street parking.
Therefore, a maximum of 46 on-street parking spaces would be potentially available
should the parking lot becomes full during peak hours .
After reviewing the traffic study, the City's traffic consultant recommends two additional
conditions :
1. A parking mitigation plan shall be submitted prior to opening (of the business),
which would mitigate any problems associated with the restaurant land uses; and
2. At the time of each project(s) opening, review the on-site parking demand and
re-evaluate the situation approximately nine months after opening. If at either time
the p (Peak time) parking (deficiency) is determined to exist, a parking mitigation
1\TEMPLE2 K\Apps\Word\Oepartment\CDO\RPTS\Pianni ng\Planning Commission\Condobonal Use Perm1ts (CUP)\2009 CUP\PC Staff Report. CUP 09 -
17 38,9616,9618 L as Tunas Dr (Kang Kang Res\aurant_Twen Ma).doc
Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit 09-1738
9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive
plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the City.
PageS
Staff agrees with the City traffic consultant's opinion that the actual traffic impact should
be evaluated prior to and after the operation of the business . In addition, the off-site
parking for employees as suggested by the traffic study is a good approach that should
be conditioned regardless of the impact evaluations . Staff feels that the Primrose parking
lot is an under-utilized public parking lot that is within the walking distance of the subject
site, and the parking shortfall projected by the traffic study would most likely result in on-
street parking and parking spillover into the adjacent residential streets . By requiring
employee parking in that parking lot, it can help reduce demand at the adjacent public
parking lot even if that demand could be absorbed by available on-street parking.
In 2007, the City adopted an in-lieu parking fee for parking deficient businesses in
commercial districts. To determine the in-lieu parking fee for this project , staff referenced
two previously approved projects-Green Island (a full service restaurant) and C Cup (a
yogurt shop/bakery business). The City had imposed a $5 ,000 and $2,250 annual in-lieu
parking fee for these two restaurants , respectively. Considering the scale of the proposed
use, staff recommends a $3,500 annu_al in-lieu parking fee for this project.
In conclusion , staff feels that the proposed project will be sustainable at the subject site .
The use is designated as a compatible use and is an encouraged use by the Downtown
Specific Plan . The potential traffic/parking impacts have been adequately addressed and
mitigated. Although a small parking shortfall in the pub li c parking lot is anticipated, the
problem could be addressed through the mitigation measures and conditions suggested
by the traffic study and by the City's traffic engineer consultant. Also, the City maintains
the revocation power (stated as condition 1 0) to address an extreme situation should the
conditions of approval fail to mitigate the situation .
Recommendation:
Adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Conditional Use Permit 09-1738, based upon
the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the draft Resolution .
Attachments : 1. Staff Draft Resolution
2 . Application
3. Negative Declaration
4 . Environmental Checklist
5. Environmental Discussion
6. Traffic Study for the Project
7 . Downtown Specific Plan Ill 32-35, IV 11-13
8. Vicinity Map
9. Land Use Map
10. Aerial Photo
\\TEMPL E2K\Apps\Word\Oepartmenl\COO\R PTS\Pianning\Pianmng Commiss1o n\Cond1lional Use Pe rmits (C UP)\2 009 CUP\P C Staff Report-CUP 09-
1738 , 9616 ,9618 l as Tu nas Dr (Kang Kang Reslaurant_Twen Ma) doc
RESOLUTION NO. 09-2280 PC
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMPLE CITY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-1738 TO AlLOW
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AT 9616-9618 LAS
TUNAS DRIVE. THE SITE IS DESIGNATED AS CITY CENTER (CC)
COMMERCIAL ON THE CITY'S DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE
MAP. (KANG KANG FOOD COURT) (CUP 09-1738)
The Planning Commission of the City of Temple City does hereby resolve :
SECTION 1. Based upon a Public Hearing for the above Conditional Use Pennit,
the Planning Commission hereby finds:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape, topography and
circumstances to sustain the proposed use in that the subject site is a developed
commercial site with a land area of approximately 4,000 square feet and a
building floor area of approximately 3, 700 square feet; both of which are large
enough to accommodate the proposed use; and
2 . That the site does have sufficient access to streets and highways, adequate in
width and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by
the proposed use in that the site can be accessed directly by three streets and
will utilize a 57 -space public parking lot for parking. Two of the three streets
abutting the site, Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard, are major
thoroughfares in the city which shall provide adequate access to the site. The
public parking lots in the vicinity, along with the conditions to mitigate
traffic/parking impacts, should accommodate the parking demand generated by
the proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon the use, enjoyment
or valuation of adjacent property or upon the public welfare in that the proposed
use is identified as a compatible land use for the site which is comparable and
complementary to the vision and goals of the Downtown Specific Plan.
SECTION 2 . This project should not result in significant effects upon the
environment, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared and is hereby adopted in
accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The initial statement as prepared
indicates there is no potential for adverse impact to the environment as it relates to all
wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians , and related ecological communities,
including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability.
Resolution 09-2280 PC
Conditional Use Permit 09-1738
9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive, Kang Kang Food Court
Page2
SECTION 3. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 09-1738 is approved based
upon the following conditions :
1. The proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the
submitted floor plan date stamped April 04, 2009 , except as modified
herein.
2. The project is approved as a fast food restaurant/food court style
restaurant. Any major change to the use shall require a modification of
this conditional use permit approval.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits, any plans to change the front and/or
rear building fa9ade(s) shall be reviewed by the Community Development
Department through the Site Plan Review process . Said plans shall be
subject to the design review guidelines of the Downtown Specific Plan.
4. The hours of operation for the business shall be limited to 7:00 a.m . to
12 :00 a.m . daily.
5. No less than 6 months and no more than 9 months from commencement
of operation ot' this restaurant use, Staff shall cause a report to be brought
forth to the Planning Commission that indicates any negative impacts that
may be associated with this use, specifically regarding parking, noise,
and/or hours of operation . If the Planning Commission feels that H is
necessary to review this approval and potentially impose additional
conditions of approval based on the aforementioned concerns, then the
applicant agrees that the Planning Commission reserves the right to
cause a public hearing(s) to be scheduled to address said concerns , and
additional conditions of approval may be imposed at that time . The
Planning Commission could require the implementation of additional
conditions of approval such as a traffic/parking mitigation plan as may be
required by the City's traffic engineering consultant.
6. There shall be a maximum of 70 seats for inside dining. No outside
dinning is approved as a part of this application. If in a future date outside
dining is desired, the arrangement and number of seats shall first be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department.
7. A $3,500 in-lieu parking fee shall be paid on an annual basis to the City of
Temple City . The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a business license
and shall be paid annually prior to subsequent business license renewals.
If said in-lieu parking fee is not paid as stated, the City may revoke this
conditional use permit approval.
Resolution 09-2280 PC
Conditional Use Permit 09-1738
9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive, Kang Kang Food Court
Page3
8. No alcoholic beverages shall be served and alcoholic beverages shall not
be available for purchase at this restaurant unless a modification of this
conditional use permit is obtained from for the Planning Commission
and/or City Council to allow the sale and consumption of alcoholic
beverages onsite.
9. All signage for the business shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Department prior to installation.
10. The business operator shall ensure that all employee-parking occurs in
the northernmost public parking lot located on Primrose Avenue.
11 . The granting body (the Planning Commission) shall reserve the power of
revocation of this approval and/or the power to impose additional
conditions of approval if this establishment proves to create a significant
traffic or parking problem which is beyond the projection of the
traffic/parking study prepared for the project.
12. The applicant shall receive necessary approvals from the Los Angeles
County Health Department prior to opening for business . The proposed
use shall be in full compliance with all applicable health and safety
standards, as well as all of the Los Angeles County Industrial Waste
requirements .
13. All activities and functions of the site shall be subject to the City's Noise
Ordinance. Any violation of the City's Noise Ordinance as contained in
Section 9280-9282 .1 shall be grounds for revocation of this Conditional
Use Permit.
14. The business owner/property owner shall be responsible for controlling
loitering and other conduct of individuals on the premises.
15 . The Conditions of Approval contained in this Resolution may be enforced
by the Sheriff's Office as well as City Staff. Any violation of any condition
is a misdemeanor and may be processed directly by criminal complaint.
16. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire 24 months from the date of
approval if said approval is not exercised within that time. If the
project is not commenced prior to the expiration date, the applicant
may apply in writing for an extension of time at least forty (40) days
before the expiration date.
17. This Resolution shall not become valid until such time that the
applicant and business owner has signed a copy of the Resolution
acknowledging acceptance of the Conditions of Approval.
Resolution 09-2280 PC
Conditional Use Permit 09-1738
9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive, Kang Kang Food Court
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Page4
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 28th of
July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner-Chen, Horton, 0' Leary, Seibert
Commissioner-Valenzuela
Commissioner-None
Commissioner-None
~h;!?Q Sec ary
READ AND APPROVED AND CONDITIONS ACCEPTED:
~
Twen Ma, Applicant
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Applicant:
Type of Permit:
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
DISCRETIONARY
FileNo: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-1738
Description of the proposed project: DRAFT
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT AT 9616-9618 LAS
TUNAS DRIVE. THE BUSINESS WILL PROVIDE A SELECTION OF CHINESE FAST
FOOD WITH A PROPOSED MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF SEVENTY (70) SEATS FOR
INSIDE DINING. THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA FOR THE BUSINESS IS 4,000 SQUARE
FEET AND THE PROPOSED BUSINESS HOURS WILL BE FROM 7:00AM TO 12:00
AM, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY
CENTER COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (CC) AREA WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN.
The Community Development Manager of the City of TEMPLE CITY has examined the
plans for the above-captioned Conditional Use Permit and Zone Variance as submitted by
the applicant, and on the basis of the Initial Study and "Assessment of Environmental
Impact Questionnaire" on file as a public document, it has been determined that this
project will have no significant impact upon the environment within the meaning of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
DATED: July 02, 2009
Any person may file a protest to the Negative Declaration with the City Clerk prior to the
issuance of the permit or approval of the project. The protest must be in writing and must
state the environmental factors on which the protest is based. The protest shall be
reviewed by the City Manager or his agent. If he finds that the protest is based on one or
more significant environmental factors not previously considered , and which may have a
substantial adverse effect on the environment, the permit shall be suspended and an EIR
shall be processed. The decision of the reviewer shall be final. Copies of the Initial Study
may be obtained for $0 .50 for the first page and $0.10 for each additional page.
POSTED AT CITY HALL on the 2nd Day of July, 2009
City of Temple City
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
PROJECT TITLE
Conditional Use Pennit 09-1738
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, California 91780
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Joseph M. Lambert , Community Development Manager
( 626) 285-2171
PROJECT LOCATION
9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive, Temple City, CA 91780
PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNER:
Chin Yu Yeh
1115, Whitmore Street, #A
Monterey Park, CA 91775
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Commercial
ZONING
CC, Center Commercial
APPLICANT :
TwenMa
195 Mount Olive Drive
Bradbury, CA 910008
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project,
and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary).
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT AT 9616-9618 LAS TUNAS DRIVE. THE
BUSINESS WILL PROVIDE A SELECTION OF CHINESE FAST FOOD WITH A PROPOSED MAXIMUM CAPACITY
OF SEVENTY (70) SEATS FOR fNSIDE DINfNG. THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA FOR THE BUSINESS IS 4,000 SQUARE
FEET AND THE PROPOSED BUSINESS HOURS WILL BE FROM 7:00 AM TO 12:00 AM, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED fN THE CITY CENTER COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (CC) AREA WITHIN THE
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN.
OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED)
Building Department approval of Tenant Improvement Plan and issuance of business license
City o£ Temple City
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a . Conflict with general plan designation or D
zoning
0 0 .~
b. Conflict with applicable environmental D 0 D )~ plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
c . Affect agricultural resources or operations D D 0
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands , or
impacts from incompatible land uses?
d . Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement 0 D 0
of an established community (including a
low income or minority community?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING . Would the proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or 0 0 0 @
local population projects?
b. lnduce substantial growth in an area either 0
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
0 0 ~
in an undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure?
c. Displace existing housing, especially D D D
affordable housing?
3. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a. Seismicity: fault rupture? D D D }?i
b. Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? D D D EJ
c. Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? 0 0 D ;0
d. Landslides or mudslides? 0 D 0 xr
e. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable D D D -~ soil conditions from excavation , grading or
fill?
f. Subsidence of the land? D 0 0 ~
g. Expansive soils? D D D ~ h. Unique geologic or physical features? D D D
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Potentially Signifi cant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
4. WATER. Would the proposal result:
a . Changes in absorption rates, drainage D 0 D
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
b. Exposure of people or property to water D D D DlJ'
related hazards such as flooding?
c. Discharge into surface waters or other D D D .s.
alterations of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in D 0 0 ~ any water body?
e . Changes in currents, or the course or D
direction of water movements?
0 D .~
f. Changes in the quantity of ground either D D D ~ through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of 0
groundwater?
D 0 J~
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? D D D ~
I. Storm water system discharges from area 0
for materials storage, vehicle or equipment
0 D ~
fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance
(including washing), waste handling,
hazardous materials handling or storage
d e livery or loading docks, or other outdoor
work area?
j . A significantly environmentally harmful 0 0 0
increase in the flow rate or volume of storm
water runoff?
k. A significantly environmentally harmful 0 0 0
increase in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
I. Storm water discharges that would 0 0 0
significantly impair the beneficial uses of
receiving waters or areas that provide water
quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors,
wetlands, etc.)?
m. Harm to the biological integrity of drainage 0 0 0
systems and water bodies?
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mit igated Impact Impact
s. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal :
a . Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 &l
c. Alter air movement, moisture, or 0 0 D -~ temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
d . Create objectionable odors? 0 D D
6. TRANSPORTATION/CffiCULATION. Would the proposal
result in :
a. [ncreased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 D ~ D
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. 0 D D P4 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
c . Inadequate emergency access or access to D 0 D ~ nearby uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-D
site?
D ~ [j
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or D 0 0 )4
bicyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting D D D iQ
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks) ?
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? D D 0 ~
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or 0 0 D
their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g . heritage D 0 0 ~
trees)?
c. Locally designated natural communities D 0 0 ~
(e.g. oak forest, costal habitat, etc.)?
d. Wetland habitat (e.g . marsh, riparian and D D D ~ vernal pool)?
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Un less Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e . Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? D D D ~
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservational D D D ~ plans?
b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 0 0 0 ~ and inefficient manner?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 D .~
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b. Poss.ible interference with an emergency D 0 D ~ response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
c . The creation of any health hazard or D 0 D ~ potential health hazard?
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of D D D ~
potential health hazards?
e. Increased fire hazard areas in areas with 0 D D ){
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? D D .~ D
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? D 0 0 .~
II. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered government services in any
of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? 0 D D -~
b. Police protection? D D D l?J
c . Schools? 0 D D .Br
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 .~ roads?
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Potentially Signi fi cant Le ss Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impa ct
16. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 D 0
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat offish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or re.strict the rang of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b . Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 .~
shott-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that are 0 D 0
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incre mental effects of a project
are considerable w hen viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects).
d. Does the project have environmental effects 0 0 0
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly o r indirectly?
Discussion of Environmental Eva.Jation 1
Fast Food Restaurant: 9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
50. AIR QUALITY: The odor from the exhaust of a restaurant kitchen and the
increased carbon emission brought by the increased traffic are both expected.
However, they are not anticipated to be significant given the scale of the project.
The "greasy" odor from a restaurant may be offensive to some people, but such
odor may just be a smell of food to others. Also, from a micro-scale level, the
increased carbon emission from the cars coming for the business is not able to
significantly affect the air quality.
6A, SD.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: The increased onsite parking demand
and the increased traffic at the two adjacent intersections are concerns because
increased traffic is anticipated . A traffic study was conducted and the result
indicates that the project would increase the traffic at the adjacent intersections
slightly with no impact on the level of service, yet the study predicts a parking
shortfall of up to 15 spaces during peak hours. Thus, the study suggests two
mitigation measures. One is to require off-site employee parking and the other is to
create some on-site 20-minute restrictive parking spaces. in addition, the City's
traffic engineering consultant, after reviewing the traffic study, recommends two
addition conditions: a traffic mitigation plan shall be prepared prior to the
commencement of the business; and a evaluation process be conducted to
determine if the mitigation plan should be implemented. Staff feels that with the
mitigation plan and the proposed conditions, the traffic impact shall be addressed.
10A. Noise: The post project noise level will be slightly increased in the area due to the
increased traffic and business activities attracted by the business. However, the
subject site is a commercial location in the City's Center Commercial District and is
surrounded by similar commercial uses. The noise impact will not have a direct
impact on the noise-sensitive land uses such as residential properties. In addition,
the City's noise ordinance has provisions to safeguard the compliance of the
project with the noise limit. Violations will be subject to citations and in this case,
could lead to the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit, if the project was to be
approved.
\\TEMPLE2K\Apps\Word\Department\CDD\FORM\Pianning\CEQA\Environmental Discussions\ENV
DISCUSSION, 9616,9618las Tunas Dr )fast food restaurant_Twen Ma).doc
KOA CORPORATION
PlANNING & ENG INEERING
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: June I 7, 2009
To: John Yeh, Project Applicant
cc: Twen Ma, Twen Ma Architects
From: Brian A. Marchetti, AJCP
PLANNING DEPARTMENl
JUN 1 8 2009
CllVOF
TEMPlECnV
Subject: Parking and Traffic Study for Proposed 96 I 6-9618 las Tunas Drive P.estaurant
KOA Corporation has completed its analysis of traffic and parking impacts associated with the potential
development of a restaurant project on the south side of las Tunas Drive, between Camellia Avenue and Temple
City Boulevard. The project would be located within an existing commercial development, at the ;address of
9616-96 I 8 las Tunas Drive.
In order to provide an analysis of summary of traffic and parking issues that would be created by the proposed
project, the following tasks were conducted:
• Collection of a.m. and p.m. period traffic counts at two study intersections on Las Tunas Drive;
• Analysis of existing weekday peak-hour level of service;
• Survey of existing peak weekday and Saturday on-site (City lot) parking availability;
• Survey of on-street parking availability adjacent to the project block; and
• Analysis of available parking supply with project.
The results of these tasks are summarized within the sections below. TraffiC analysis results are summarized first,
followed by the parking analysis results and a final summary of the overall impact conclusions.
Traffic Impact Analysis
Study Area
For this analysis, the two nearest signalized intersections were defined as study intersections through
consultations with the City of Temple City. These study intersections were analyzed for potential traffic impacts
of the proposed Project during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, when the peak activity of the use would
overlap with the peak activity of area roadways. The study intersections are as follows :
I. Temple City Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive
2. Camellia Avenue and Las Tunas Drive
The locations of the study intersections are illustrated on Figure I provided in Attachment B.
LOSANGELES OAKLAND ONTARIO ORANG E COUNTY SAN DIEGO
/
. KOA CORPORATION
.... ~ PLANNING & ENGINEER ING
• Figure I -Study Area Intersections
• Figure 2 -Project Site Plan
• Figure 3-Existing AM Peak-Hour Turn Movement Volumes
• Figure 4-Existing PM Peak-Hour Turn Movement Volumes
• Figure 5-Area Project AM Peak-Hour Turn Movement Volumes
• Figure 6-Area Project PM Peak-Hour Turn Movement Volumes
• Figure 7-Existing+ Area Project AM Peak-Hour Turn Movement Volumes
• Figure 8-Existing+ Area Project PM Peak-Hour Turn Movement Volumes
• Figure 9-Project Trip Distribution-Inbound
• Figure I 0-Project Trip Distribution-Outbound
• Figure II -Project Trip Assignment-AM Peak Hour
• Figure 12 -Project Trip Assignment -AM Peak Hour
• Figure 13-Existing+ Area Project+ Project AM Peak-Hour Turn Movement Volumes
• Figure 14-Existing+ Area Project+ Project AM Peak-Hour Turn Movement Volumes
The traffic analysis worksheets for the three analyzed scenarios are provided in Attachment C.
Analysis of Existin' Restaurant Loq,tjons
The project applicant operates two existing restaurants in the local area, including the Kang Kang Restaurant in
Alhambra, near the intersection of Gariield Avenue and Valley Boulevard. A second restaurant in Monterey Park
operates under the name "Shau May". The proposed project would be the third location of the chain. Under a
typical restaurant layout, which is also being applied to the design for the proposed project, approximately 35
percent of the floor area is dedicated to seating. The remaining floor area is dedicated to the kitchen use, the
walk-up order counter, and utility areas. The existing restaurants are primarily nke-out businesses, and the
kitchen staff also creates and sells pastries to other restaurants in the area.
Due to the unique characteristics of the proposed restaurant. analysis was conducted of customer type
breakdowns at the existing restaurants. Sales receipt summaries from both existing locations were analyzed by
KOA to determine the proportion of take-out and dine-in transactions. Activity from Thursday, April 23, 2009
and Saturday, April 25, 2009 was reviewed for this purpose.
Table I provides a summary of the customer-type breakdown at the two existing restaurant locations owned by
the applicant. The receipt summaries used for this analysis are provided in Attachment C.
Initial Review of Proposed 9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive Restaurant Project
Prepared for Twen Ma Architects
June 17, 2009
Page 3
JA9108S
KOA CORPORATION
PLANNI NG & ENGINEERING
TABLE I-
CUSTOMER BREAKDOWN AT EXISTING LOCATIONS
WEEKDAY WEEKEND
Average % Average %
LUNCH
Srt-Down Transactions 65 21% 100 23%
T ake-OutT ransactions 244 79% 330 77%
DINNER
Sit-Down Transactions 85.5 18% 116 18%
Take-OutTransactions 39<1 82% 5<15.5 82%
DAILY AVERAGE Average Trannction " Sir-Down Transactions 92 19%
Take-Out Transactions 378 81%
The average breakdown of dine-in (sit-down) and take-out customers is 19 percent and 81 percent. respectively.
This breakdown was used to analyze both the trip generation and the parking demand of the proposed project.
Trip generation was broken down based on rates for fast-food and sit~down restaurant trip types and parking
demand generation was broken down into code requirements for the number of spaces required for take-out
restaurants and for sit-down restaurants.
Project Trip Generation
The proposed restaurant would begin operation within the year 2009 with a total gross square floor area of -4,0 18
square feet The new restaurant would replace tWo retail tenant spaces, and would include a small expansion at
the rear of the building as part of the project construction. Parking is provided at the rear of the overall
commercial building (in a City-owned parking lot) that includes the proposed restaurant space .
One of the tenant spaces is vacant (but was operational through Spring of 2009), and the other tenant space Is
occupied by a bridal shop (to be completed with its existing lease by July 2009). The existing total gross floor
area of the t:No tenant totals 3,768 square feet, and was included as an existing use credit in the trip generation
calculations.
Based on the analysis with the previous report sub-section, customer trips were analyzed with a breakdown of 8 I
percent to-go orders and 19 percent sit·down orders. Therefore, the trip generation calculations included a
breakdown for project trip generation that would be characteristic of fast-food restaurants (without drive-thru
facilities) and also for project trlp generation that would be characteristic of a traditional sit-down restaurant.
Table 1 provides a summary of the project trip generation calculations.
Initial Review of Proposed 96 J6-9 618w Tunas Drive Restaurant Project
Prepared ror Twen Ma Architects
June 17. 2009
Page <I
JA91085
I ;.: KOA CORPORATION i. «:~ PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Project trips were analyzed with a distribution of 20 percent from the north, 25 percent from the south, 20
percent from the east, and 35 percent from the west. The project trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 9 and
Figure I 0 of Attachment B.
Operatjons and Impact Analysis-Study Intersections
Table 3 provides a summary of traffic operations at the two study intersections. The "VIC" column titles refer to
the analyzed volume-to-capacity ratio and "LOS" refers to the level of service value. Both study intersections
operate at good LOS values (LOS D or better} under existing conditions.
TABLE 3-
STUDY INTERSECTION OPERATIONS AND IMPACTS
ExbtJn& + ArQ
Ex!Stlftl (2009} Exoni"ll: + lvel Projects + Project
Condldons Projects Conditions Cond;tions
TIME Dilfvs.
lOll Intersection PERIOD VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS Pre·Proj. Signill
I Ten>ple Clly BM:t & u1 Tunas Or AM 0,!13 0 0.834 0 0.852 0 0.018 No
PM 0.826 0 O.IH6 D 0.859 0 0.013 No
2 Camelloa Ave & us Tunu Dr AM 0.~18 A 0-428 A 0 .~33 A 0.005 No
PM 0.55~ A 0.573 A 0.586 A 0.013 No
The two intersections would continue to operate at good LOS values (LOS D or better) with the addition of
traffic from the identified area project and growth (incorporating the effects of other potential projects) and the
proposed project.
Significant traffic impacts from the proposed project would not occur based on the applied guidelines. At LOS D,
which is the analyzed operating condition for intersection #I across all analyzed scenarios, impacts would occur
with a change of 0.02 or higher in the v/c values. The identified changes, under the "Diff vs. Pre-Proj'' column, are
under the 0.02 threshold. Impact thresholds do not apply to Intersection #2, as the intersection would continue
to operate at LOS A under all scenarios.
The level of service worksheets are provided in Attachment D.
Parking Impact Analysis
Parking requirements for the project was analyzed based on City parking code, and a comparison was also made
of the required parking supply to the available spaces within the City parking lot from the weekday and weekend
demand surveys. Although weekend activity of the project was not determined to overlap with any peak
weekend periods of roadway traffic activity, parking demand was analyzed for both weekday and weekend periods
due to potential supply issues associated with the City parking lot to be used for the project parking supply.
Initial Review of Proposed 9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive Res~urant Project
Prepared for T wen Ma ArchitectS
June 17, 2009
Page 6
JA91085
... KOA CORPORATION
.• ._"~ 1 PLANNIN G & ENGINEERING
Existin& Conditions
In order to review existing parking conditions , a parking survey was conducted during weekday and weekend
timeframes at the City parking lot located at the rear of the proposed use. The de mand for on-street parking on
the adjacent curb face of the entire block that contains the project site was also exam ined during the surveys.
Surveys were conducted on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 and Saturday, May 2, 2009, at 30-minute intervals during
the following time periods:
• W e ekday mid-day-I I :00 a.m. to I :00 p.m.
• Weekday evening-5:00 p.m. to 7:00p.m.
• Saturday evening-4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
The tables provided within this report provide average data for every 60-minute survey interval, for both the
weekday and weekend survey periods.
Table 4 provides average weekday totals for the off-street patidng surveyed area (the City parking lot) and the
on-street surveyed areas. During the weekday survey, the off-street and on-street parking areas contained at
least 31 (54 percent) available spaces, and 53 (77 percent) available spaces, respectively. A total of 84 spaces
were available during the worst-case period (the 12:00 p.m. hour), based on a total of the off-street and on-street
parking supplies .
TABLE 4-WEEKDAY PARKING AVAILABILITY
EXISTING SITE
SUPPLY I 1:00AM ll:OOPH 1:00PM 5:00PM 6:00PM
OFF-STREET PAIWNG DEMAND
l"arrrrnt LDl 57 ll S6X ll HX ll sex lS 67S ., 8611
ON.STREET PARKING
uo T...,. Dr · 5o<nh Curl! 13 a 6n 7 .14X 9 '"' 5 Jn 6 4611
T ....... Orr lllwd • Ean C""" II 6 SSll 3 lnl s 4511 9 8211 7 64X
ea,.llia ,. ... Euc Cllrl> 16 IS Ml 16 10111 IS 9ft 14 •n 10 6lll
C.Molllo ,..,. • Wuc C<O'!> 19 II 9511 18 9S11 17 m 14 1411 IS m
w..nn.. ,. ... N""" c.n. 10 a sox 9 toll 9 m 9 fOX ' toll
On·Street • Total 69 S5 80" Sl 77" 55 lOX 51 74" 47 611"
NET TOTAL 116 17 '"' 14 67" II 70" 89 71" t6 76"
7:00""
S4 '.I"
8 6211
9 82X
11 7.1X
16 .. "
9 90S
54 71"
101 i ""
Table 5 provides average weekend totals ror the off-street parking and on-street parking areas. During the
weekend survey, off-street and on-street parking areas contained at least 37 (65 percent) and 57 (83 percent)
available spaces, respectively. A total of 94 spaces were available during the worst-case period (the 4 :00 p.m.
hour), based on a total of the off-street and on· street parking supplies.
In itial Revi ew of Pro posed 961 6-96 18 las Tunas Drive Restaurant Project
Prepared for Twen Ma Architects
June 17, 2009
Page7
JA91085
.-~. KOA CORPORATION
"· \ · •• PLA N NI NG & ENG INEE RING
TABLE 5-WEEKEND PARKING AVAILABILITY
EXISTING SITE
SUPP'LY 4;00 PH 5:00PM 6:00 "" 7:00 PH
OFF-STREET PARKlNG DEMAND
l'>rlllft& L>l S7 37 '"' ~0 7CW. ~s "" 53 9J ll
ON-STREET PARKING
w Tun:u Or· SaLRil Clri> 13 8 62" 7 S4X 10 71X ll ns
T ornplo Coty 111\od • bot C..-b II I I I ODS ID "" ' 82" II I ODS
c..,.a;, A .. • EIIJt Clri> 16 I ~ an IS 94X IS ux 14 an
C•mdia Avo • W~n Clri> ., IS 79X 14 74'J( 14 74ll l l flX
Woricman Av. • Nontl Clri> 10 ' 90S ' 90X I wx a ID'lC
On-Street -Total 69 57 83" 55 80% 56
I '""
57 83"
TOTAL 116 94 75" 95 75" 101 11(),.; liD 87"
Attachment E provides the data of off-street and on-street available spaces from the surveys collected for both
days.
Parking Requiremeny
The proposed site plan includes 57 parking spaces within the public parking lot, located at the rear of the project.
The project would be sharing a portion of these parking spaces (in fulfilling its Code requirements) with other
tenants of the overall commercial building.
The C ity of Temple City municipal code defines the following parking requirements that would apply to the
proposed project:
• Fast-food restaurant -I space per 200 square feet of gross floor area
• High turn-over (sit-down) r estaurant-I space per I 00 square feet of gross floor area
• Retail use -I space per 250 square feet of gross floor area *
• Emtinr credit WOf applied to por/t.int demand (or the removol o( retail uses to be replaced by f>rotx>sed resCDuront l>fojtcl, Of these
tenonrs 111e the City porlr.inr lot currendy (or their Code requiremenu by rirfn or rrond(athered use.
Based on the City code parking requirement, the proposed project would be required to provide a total of 24
parl<ing spaces as follows:
• Fast-food restaurant customers-16 spaces based on 81% of project floor area for to-go orders
• High tum-over (sit-down) restaurant customers -8 spaces based on 19% of floor area for sit-down
orders
In it ial Review o f Proposed 961 6-9618 Las Tunas Drive Restaurant Project
Pr epared for Twen Ma Architects
June 17, 2009
Page B
JA91085
" 0
K O A C O R P O R A T I O N
. ; P L A N N I N G & E N G I N E E R I N G
O f f - s t r e e t P a r k i n c
T h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t w a s c o n s i d e r e d t o o p e r a t e , i n d e f i n e d p r o p o r t i o n s , a s b o t h a h i g h t u r n - o v e r r e s t a u r a n t a n d
a f a s t - f o o d r e s t a u r a n t . T h e p a r k i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s w e r e a p p l i e d a c c o r d i n g l y t o t h e d e f i n e d b r e a k d o w n o f 1 9
p e r c e n t d i n e - i n ( s i t - d o w n ) c u s t o m e r s a n d 8 1 p e r c e n t t a k e - o u t c u s t o m e r s . A s h a r e d p a r k i n g a n a l y s i s w a s u t i l i z e d
t o d e t e r m i n e t h e s u f f i c i e n t p a r k i n g s p a c e s a v a i l a b l e d u r i n g e a c h o f t h e a n a l y z e d w e e k d a y a n d w e e k e n d h o u r s .
T a b l e 6 a n d T a b l e 7 p r o v i d e t h e w e e k d a y a n d w e e k e n d s u m m a r y o f t h e s h a r e d p a r k i n g a n a l y s i s b a s e d o n t h e C i t y
o f T e m p l e C i t y m u n i c i p a l c o d e . T h e s h a r e d p a r k i n g a n a l y s i s t a b l e , u s e d t o d e f i n e d t y p i c a l p e r c e n t i n t e n s i t i e s o f
d e m a n d b y h o u r f o r b o t h t h e p l a n n e d r e s t a u r a n t u s e a n d t h e e x i s t i n g r e t a i l s p a c e s i n c l u d e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s , i s
p r o v i d e d i n A t t a c h m e n t F o f t h i s m e m o r a n d u m .
C i t y C o d e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e p r o p o s e d u s e w e r e u s e d f o r t h e d a t a w i t h i n t h e " P r o p o s e d R e s t a u r a n t D e m a n d "
r o w s w i t h i n t h e t w o t a b l e s . T h e d a t a w i t h i n t h e " E x i s t i n g R e t a i l C r e d i t s " r o w s w e r e t a k e n f r o m t h e C o d e
r e q u i r e m e n t s t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g r e t a i l s p a c e s w i t h i n t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t s p a c e w o u l d o t h e r w i s e h a v e t o p r o v i d e
( a l t h o u g h t h e u s e s a r e g r a n d f a t h e r e d i n t e r m s o f p a r k i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s ) . T h i s a l l o w s f o r a n a n a l y s i s o f c o d e
r e q u i r e m e n t s b a s e d o n t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t s p a c e f r o m r e t a i l t o r e s t a u r a n t u s e .
T h e d a t a w i t h i n t h e " V a c a n t S p a c e P o t e n t i a l D e m a n d " r o w s w a s b a s e d o n d e m a n d r a t e s f o r r e t a i l s p a c e s d e f i n e d
w i t h i n P a r k i n g G e n e r a t i o n ( J r d e d i t i o n ) , p u b l i s h e d b y t h e I n s t i t u t e o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n E n g i n e e r s . T h e e x i s t i n g a d j a c e n t
r e t a i l s p a c e t h a t w a s v a c a n t d u r i n g t h e p a r k i n g s u r v e y h a s t h e a d d r e s s o f 9 6 0 6 . T h i s s p a c e h a s 2 , 5 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t
o f f l o o r a r e a . I n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e a c o n s e r v a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f f u t u r e n e a r - t e r m p a r k i n g d e m a n d , t h e p o t e n t i a l
d e m a n d f r o m t h i s v a c a n t s p a c e w a s a d d e d b a c k i n t o t h e a n a l y s i s .
T A B L E 6 - W E E K D A Y P R O J E C T P A R K I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S
A N D O V E R A L L S U P P L Y / D E M A N D
H o u r I 1 : 0 0 A M 1 1 : 0 0 P M 1 : 0 0 P H 5 : 0 0 P M 6 : 0 0 P M 7 : 0 0 P H
E x i s t i n g P a r k i n g L o t - O c c u p i e d S p a c e s 2 6 2 7 2 4 2 0 9
P r o p o s e d R e s t a u r a n t D e m a n d * 1 7 2 2 2 2 1 6 2 1
E x i s t i n g ( R e t a i l ) C r e d i t s ) " - 1 3 - 1 4 - 1 5 - 1 4 - 1 4 - - - - -
T o t a l ( F u t u r e ) D e m a n d 3 0 3 5 3 1 2 2 1 6
S u b t o t a l D e f i c i t ( - ) I S u r p l u s ( + ) 2 7 2 2 2 6 3 5 4 1
V a c a n t S p a c e P o t e n t i a l D e m o n d " # 6 7 7 7 7
O t h e r P l a n n e d R e s t a u r a n t - 3 , 9 7 6 s q . f t . 1 6 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 8
R e v i s e d ( F u t u r e ) D e m a n d 5 2 7 2 6 8 5 9 6 1
T o t a l D e f i c i t ( - ) I S u r p l u s ( + ) 5 - 1 5 � I I - 1 - 4
N o t e : C u u o m e r b ~ o k d o w n o f 8 I " f a s t f o o d r e s t a u r a n t o n d 1 9 " s i t - d o w n r e s r o u r o n t w a s u t i 6 z e d t o C D i c u l c n e t h e p r o j e c t C o d e r e q u i r e m e n L
" P r o p o s e d r e s t o u r o n t o n d e x i s r . W l f m D i l p u r l c i n f d e m a n d w e n ( o c t o r e d b a s e d o n o s h o r e d J K I T I < i n f a n o l y s i s .
# P o t e n t i o l d e m a n d f r o m e u t r m t / y - ' I ' O C o n t r e t a i l s t x x e s w o s c a l c u l a t e d l l f i n t i T E P o r l < i n r G e n e r a t i o n ( 3 r d e d i t i o n ) .
I n i t i a l R e v i e w o f P r o p o s e d 9 6 1 6 - 9 6 1 8 L a s T u n a s D r i v e R e s a u r a n t P r o j e c t
P r e p a r e d f o r T w e n M a A r c h i t e c t s
J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 9
3
2 1
- 1 4
1 0
< 4 7
7
4 0
5 7
0
P a g e 9
J A 9 1 0 8 5
li>~ KOA CORPORATION r·{ ...._ ( PLANNING & ENGINEEit!NG
TABLE 7-WEEKEND PROJECT PARKING REQUIREMENTS,
AND OVERALL SUPPLY/DEMAND
Hour 4:00PM 5:00PM 6:00PM 7:00PM
E:xisting Parking Lot -Occupied Spaces 21 17 13 4
Proposed Restaurant Demand* 12 14 21 20
Ex1sting (Retail) Credits * -14 -14 -12 -II
Total Demmd 19 17 22 13
Subtotal Deficit(·) I Surplus (+) 38 40 35 44
Vacant Space Potential Demand*# 7 6 6 5 r-·-
Other Planned Restaurant • 3, 9 7 6 sq.fi 18 24 36 38
Revised (Future) Demmd 44 >47 64 56
Total Deficit(·) I Surplus(+) 13 10 ·1 I
Note: CIIStOmN breakdown of 8 "' (art (ood res!ouranl and 19" sit-dawn restaurant was utilized to calculate the project Code requirement
*Proposed restaurant and existing retail parking demand was factored based on a shared parking analysis.
# PateniXll demand fi'om currently-vocont retail spaces was calculoted using ITE. Parking GenNauon (3rd edhion).
As indicated within Table 6 and 7, the demand generated by existing and proposed/potential adjacent uses and the
proposed Project would exceed the parking supply at the City parking lot to the south during the 12:00 p.m. (I 5-
space shortage), I :00 p.m. (I I -space shortage), 5:00 p.m. (rwo-space shortage), and 6:00 p.m. (four-space
shortage) weekday hours and the 6:00 p.m. (seven-space shortage) weekend hour. The remainder of the analyzed
hours would have a parking supply surplus.
This analysis is conservative, as it includes demand from the existing vacant retail tenant space. Re-occupancy of
this space could reduce parking availability by as many as seven spaces.
It should also be noted that the project, when considered alone, would not create any area parking impacts, The
"Subtotal Deficit(·) I Surplus (+)"rows within Table 6 and Table 7 indicate the Project-only results of the parking
analysis. The localized parking deficits occur with the development of the other planned restaurant and the re-
occupation of the vacant retail space, although a large majority of the future cumulative impact would occur with
the development of the other restaurant
The combination of the planned Project and an additional restaurant in the immediate vicinity would potentially
create cumulative parking impactS, but the proposed Project when considered alone would not create parking
supply impactS.
Initial Review of Proposed 9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive Restaurant Project
Prepared for T wen Ma Architects
June 17, 2009
Page 10
JA91085
I -==· KOA CORPORATION
• ~ PLANNING A ENGINEERING
On-Street Parking
Some of the excess demand generated by the proposed Project and the other planned restaurant use could be
absorbed by available on-street parking areas. As indicated within Tables 4 and 5 of this report, the existing
availability of on-street parking spaces at the south curb of Las Tunas Drive total seven spaces during the 12:00
p.m. weekday hour, nine spaces during the l :00 p.m. weekday hour, five spaces during the 5:00 p.m. weekday
hour, six spaces during the 6:00 p.m. weekday hour, and ten spaces during the 6:00 p.m. weekend hour.
The parking survey conducted for this analysis included on-street spaces on Las Tunas Drive. Temple City
Boulevard, Camellia Avenue, and Workman Road, in order to determine potential impacts to on-street parking
areas on all of these roadways as a result of the Project. Parking demand from the proposed Project and the
other nearby proposed restaurant may, at times, be met by parking supplies beyond the local block.
Parking management strategies are provided in the section below.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the analysis within this memorandum, all the analyzed scenarios would be operating at good LOS values
(LOS D or better).
The project would not create any significant traffic impacts at the two analyzed study intersections on Las Tunas
Drive
The public parking lot located to the south of the Project location a supply of 57 spaces, of which 22 spaces would
need to be used to provide for Code-required parking for the proposed project. Credits ror existing retail uses
reduce this number to seven.
Based on the City Code requirements for the proposed Project and the nearby proposed restaurant, potential
demand from the re-occupation of the adjacent vacant retail space, and the weekday and weekend demand
survey, overall parking demand would exceed the supply of the adjacent public parking lot during peak hours of
the day. The following parking management measures are recommended, in order to avoid any significant parking
cumulative impacts:
• The City should provide 20-minute limited time spaces within the adjacent public parking lot, within
existing spaces located the closest to the rear entrance of the proposed restaurant.
• Employees of the proposed restaurant should be asked by management to use other City parking Jots
that have available space.
The project would not create any significant parking impacts with implementation of the recommended parking
supply management measures.
Initial Review of Proposed 9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive Restaurant Project
Prepared for Twen Ma Architects
June 17, 2009
Page II
JA91085
I .---:. KOA CORPORATION
('("• PLANNING & ENGINEERINC·
ATTACHMENT E
PARKING SURVEY-AVAILABLE SPACES
Page 161nitial Review of Proposed 9616 -9618 las Tunas Drive Restaurant Projec:t
Prepared for T wen Ma Arc:hitects
June 17, 2009
Attathments
JA91085
lAS TUNAS DRIVE· RESTAURANT PARKING SURVEY
Available Parking Spaces
Oat•: 4/2.9/2009 W~nesday
SUPPLY II:DDAM ll:lOAM 12:00 PM 11:30 PM 1:00PM 5:00PM S:lO PH 6:00PM 6:]0 PH 7:00 PH
OFF-S'I'REET P.ARI<iNG PEHANO
f':orldnJ Lot 57 3-4 60% 29 51" 28 4?% 33 ssx 33 58% H ' 60% 41 I 12" I -47 ~ 82% so I 88" 54 [ 9S'lC
ON-S"mEET PARkiNG
·-
w T ""'' Dr • South Curti 13 9 69% 7 S4:t. 7 54% 7 54'l( 9 6?% 8 61" 2 15% 7 ! 54% s I JS'l( 8 l 61%
Temple City Blvd-Eart Curti II 5 45" 7 .wx 2 18% 3 zr.c 5 45" B 7JX 10
I "" 6 : 55% 7 ! 64')( 9 1 sz"
c. menlo Ave -EaS1: curt. [(, 14 88% IS • 94" 16 /DO% 16 /OOX IS 94% 14 88% 1-4 sn 9 ' 56% II ! 69% 12 75%
Camt'!IIJJ Ave-W~t c.rb 19 17 89% [9 /DO% 19 /DO% 17 8?% 17 89% " I 84X 12 63% 14 I 74X 1(, 1 s4x 1(, ! 84X
Woricman Ave-North Curti 10 B 80% B 80')( 9 90% 9 9UX 9 90% 9 i 90% 9 90% 9 I 90% 9 l '"" 9 90')(
O""Sb'eet. Tobl 69 5l 77% 56 81% 53 77% 51 75" 55 80% 55 I 80% 47 68% 45 I 65" 48 ! 70% 54 78%
hr% I 10"
I
NET TOTAL 116 87 69% 85 67% 81 64" 85 67% 88 70% 89 88 91 i 73% 98 J18" lOB 86% : I
J
Date: 5f2I2009 Satunl -
SUPPLY 4:00PM 4:JO PM S:OO PM 5:JO PM 6:00PM 6:30PM 7:00PM
OFF.s'TitEETPJUOONG OEHAHD
P.rldng lot 57 ]8 6r.( JS 61% 39 6811: 41 72')( 43 75% 46 ! 8/X 53 93')(
ON-S~EET p.AfU(ING
lu T~ Dr-South Curb Tl 7 54% ' 69% 6 46')( 7 54% B 62% 12 92X ll lm:
Temp"' City Blvd-&st Curb II II /OOX II roox If /00% 9 I szx 9 82')( 9 BZX II /OO'l(
CuMDill Ave • E•n Curb f(, ll 81% 1-4 88')( IS 94')( 15 1 94% 15 94% I~ ! sn 14 88%
C.mdla Ave -Wen C1Jrb 19 IS 7?% IS 19% 13 68% 14 74% 13 68% 14 : 74% ll 6J'JC
Woricman Ave -North Clrb [0 9 ~0% 9 90X 9 90% ' 90% a 80% 8 . 80% 8 ; 80%
I '
On-Street-Total 69 55 80% 58 84" 54 78" 54 78% 53 ! 77% 57 ' IJ" 57 ~ 83%
TOTAL 126 9] 74" 93 74" 9l 174% 95 75% 96 ' 76% 103 J 82" 110 87% I .
KOA CORPORATION
PlANNING & ENG IN EERING
ATTACHMENT F
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
Page 171nitial Rev iew of Proposed 9616-9618 Las Tunas Drive Restaurant ProJect
Prepared for Twen Ma Architects
june 17, 2009
Attachments
JA91085
1. CALL TO ORDER -
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 8, 2012
Attachment G
Chairman Clift called the Public Safety Commission meeting to order at 7:32p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
EXCUSED:
Commissioner-Baudendistel, Shen, Stratis, Nimri, Clift,
Commissioner-None
Commissioner-None
ALSO PRESENT: Public Safety Officer Ariizumi, Community Development
lntem Bonus and Secretary Corrigan
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Clift led those present in the Pledge Allegiance to the Flag .
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA-None
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Stratis made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded
by Commissioner Shen and unanimously carried.
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-Regular Meeting of January 25, 2012
6. PARKING I ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION HEARINGS
A. HEARING IN PERSON
1 . Apex Trading Corp Citation No. T1111 025016
Commissioner Stratis made a motion to uphold the citation, seconded
by Commissioner Baudendistel and unanimously carried .
Citation No . T1111 025016 was upheld.
2. Betty Frazier Citation No.TC188409
Vice Chairman Nimri made a motion to uphold, the citation, seconded
by Commissioner Shen and unanimously carried.
Citation No. TC188409 was upheld.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8 , 2012
B. WRITTEN DECLARATION
1. Ko Johnston
Page 2
Citation No . T2111227004
Commissioner Stratis made a motion to uphold the citation, seconded
by Commissioner Baudendistel and unanimously carried .
Citation No. T2111227004 was upheld.
2. Kristine Toh Citation No. T3120115006
Commissioner Shen made a motion to uphold the citation, seconded by
Vice Chairman Nimri and unanimously carried .
Citation No. T3120115006 was upheld.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. REQUEST TO REMOVE THE ALL-DAY PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN
DISTRICT PARKING LOT 3 AND INSTALL A 2-HOUR PARKING LIMIT.
Public Safety Officer provided the staff report to the Commission.
Betty Ren . 9608 Las Tunas -Ms . Ren stated that she is losing business
during lunch hours because her customers cannot find any available parking
spaces. Since the parking restrictions were changed in the parking lot
behind Green Island Restaurant, the employees from Tea Station, HSBC
Bank, Jade Escrow and other businesses park all day in the parking lot
behind A Golden House Restaurant.
Colleen Huson. 5812 Camellia-Ms. Huson stated that she believes there is
sufficient parking in the parking lot and was opposed to changing the
restrictions in the parking lot.
Lee Jung Ran. 5822 Temple City -Ms. Ran stated that she owns the dry
cleaning business on Temple City Blvd. and has the same concerns as Ms.
Ren regarding the parking lot. Ms. Ran's customers have complained to her
about not being able to find a parking spot. Ms . Ren supported the request
to change the parking restrictions.
John R. Spielmann. 9628 Las Tunas -Mr. Spielman stated that he is the
property owner for the Temple City Bike Shop. The bike shop employees
park in the parking lot behind the restaurant. He is opposed to the changing
the restrictions and recommended changing the restrictions in half of the
parking lot.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
F ebruary 8 , 2012
Page 3
Rachel Kao, 9604 Las Tunas -Ms . Kao stated that she is an employee at
Jade Escrow and is opposed to changing the parking restrictions. The
employees for Jade Escrow park all day in the parking lot. When the
employees return from lunch the all day parking stalls are full and they park
in the 2-hour parking stalls. Ms . Kao also submitted a petition of those in
opposition to changing the parking restrictions .
Raymond Wong, 9600-04 Las Tunas -Mr. Wong stated that he is the
property owner of 9600-9604 Las Tunas. He is opposed changing the
parking restrictions because the employees for the surrounding businesses
use the parking lot.
Happy Smile Dental, 9600 Las Tunas -The Dentist stated that he is
opposed to changing the restrictions because his patients are in his office
longer than two hours.
Jennifer Jen. 9604 Las Tunas-Ms . Jen stated that she is an employee at
Jade Escrow and is opposed to changing the parking restrictions. She stated
that if the parking restrictions are changed, the employees for the
surrounding businesses would park on the residential streets in the
neighborhood.
Peter Chi. 5828 Temple City-Mr. Chi stated that he is opposed to changing
the parking restrictions. Mr. Chi also stated that since A Golden House
Restaurant and Green Island Restaurant came to the City, several people
park in his private parking lot during lunch hours because there are no
parking spaces in the City parking lot.
Linh Luu. 9658 Las Tunas-Ms. Luu stated that she is the owner of Color
Nails Boutique and is opposed changing the parking restrictions because she
and her employees parking in the all day parking stalls .
Terri Cheong, 9616 Las Tunas -Ms. Cheong stated that she is the owner of
Kang Kang Food Court and when she opened her business, they did not
have the parking problems that exist today. She stated that she has the
same concerns as Ms. Ren and recommends that the City build a parking
structure.
Mary Kokayko -Ms . Kokayko stated that there are available parking spaces
in other lots but nobody wants to walk to their destination. She also believes
the City added to the problem by approving the restaurants . She is opposed
to the changes because they will not solve the problem.
Linda Sparkles (via email)-Ms. Sparkles was unable to attend the meeting,
but sent staff an email stating that she was opposed to changing the parking
restrictions .
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8, 2012
Page4
The Commission held a discussion regarding the request to change the
parking restrictions in the City parking lot. Vice Chairman Nimri made a
motion to deny the request to remove the all day parking restrictions in
District Lot 3 and install a 2-hour parking limit, seconded by Commission
Stratis and unanimously carried .
Vice Chairman Nimri made motion to amend and adopt Resolution No . PSG
12-0006 denying the request, seconded by Commissioner Shen and
unanimously carried .
B. OVERNIGHT PARKING PERMIT HARDSHIP APPEAL FOR 5839 CAMELLIA
AVENUE
Public Safety Officer Ariizumi provided the staff report to the Commission .
Commissioner Baudendistel made a motion to approve the request for two
permits for 5839 Camellia Ave ., seconded by Vice Chairman Nimri and
unanimously carried.
9. COMMUNICATIONS
Public Safety Officer Ariizumi informed the Commission about the Neighborhood
Watch meeting on February 15 and the Business Watch meeting on February 16 .
10. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Shui-Lien Huang, 5843 Camellia -Ms. Huang's statement was translated by
Commissioner Shen. Ms. Huang stated that she had some issues regarding
excessive noise at Kang Kang Food Court. Public Safety Officer Ariizumi
recommended that Ms. Huang talk to Associate Planner Liu in City Hall.
11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS -None
12. COMMISSION ITEMS SEPARATE FROM THE REGULAR AGENDA
A. COMMISSIONER BAUDENDISTEL-None
B. COMMISSIONER SHEN-None
C. COMMISSIONER STRATIS -None
D. VICE CHAIRMAN NIMRI-None
E. CHAIRMAN CLIFT-None
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8, 2012
13. ADJOURNMENT
Page 5
Chairman Clift adjourned the Public Safety Commission meeting at 9:21 p.m.
Chairman
ATIEST:
Public Safety Officer