HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution 97-35711
1
1
RESOLUTION NO. 97 -3571
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 48,131
SQUARE FOOT, THREE (3) STORY SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
COMPLEX, CONTAINING 61 SMALL -SIZED SENIOR CITIZEN
HOUSING UNITS AND 33 PARKING SPACES IN THE WEST
COMMERCIAL (WC) DISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC
PLAN AT 9094, 9112, 9114 AND 9116 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
(BENDER/LEE/VAN WECHEL) (C.U.P 97- 1298).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. Based upon testimony received at a noticed hearing before the City Council and
upon facts contained in the staff' report, as well as information and testimony contained in the Planning
Commission Minutes and the Planning Commission staff report of February 11, 1997, the City Council
hereby denies Conditional Use Permit 97 -1298 based upon the following findings:
(1) That the site for the proposed use is not adequate in size, shape, topography and circumstances
in that the subject site contains 47,894 square feet of area, with rather limited access from Las
Tunas Drive; the unusual configuration of the lot exacerbates the potential adverse impacts
associated with the proposed 3 -story structure; the subject proposal constitutes overbuilding on
this relatively small-sized and irregularly- shaped parcel; and
(2) That the site does not have sufficient access to streets adequate in width and pavement type to
carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the proposed use in that the subject site
provides ingress and egress from two relatively narrow street frontages, one consisting of 31 feet
and a second consisting of 75 feet; ingress and egress from the rather heavily traveled major
arterial of Las Tunas Drive poses traffic concerns as proposed; and
(3) That the proposed use will have an adverse affect on the use, enjoyment or valuation of adjacent
or neighboring properties or upon the public welfare in that the proposed use is considered "under -
parked" with only 33 parking spaces to serve 61 housing units; this situation could contribute to
a situation of on- street parking congestion which would adversely affect surrounding businesses
and residences. Additionally, there are concerns relative to public safety, principally in terms of
Fire Department access to all portions of the building and possible unsafe living circumstances for
senior citizens who would eventually occupy the proposed senior citizen housing complex. Los
Angeles County Fire Department had not approved the subject proposal and one very important
requirement regarding access was not met by this project (i.e., the L.A. County Fire Department
requires access to within 150 feet of all parts of a structure; this requirement could not have been
met by the access provided from Las Tunas Drive alone). Additionally, in the Sheriff's Department
memorandum dated February 7, 1997, there was concerns expressed regarding the safety and
security of senior citizens who would eventually occupy this senior citizen housing cornplkx.
SECTION 2. In addition to the above - enumerated findings, the City Council of the City of
Temple City hereby makes the following finding relative to Section 65589.5(b) and (d)(2) of the State
Government Code:
That the development project as proposed would have a specific adverse impact upon the public
health or safety and there is no feasible methods to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific
adverse impacts without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate income
households in that the proposal of providing 33 parking spaces for 61 housing units is considered
Resolution No. 97 -3571
Page 2
inadequate, adversely impacting the surrounding commercial and residential area the inadequacy
of the proposed parking was specifically stated in the memorandum from Traffic Engineer Patrick
Lang dated February 7, 1997. Although a possible mitigation measure was suggested which would
limit the occupancy so that the number of units with automobiles would be restricted to 40% of
the number of units, there was some concern that this mitigation measure would be unacceptable
to any lending institution. In addition to resident parking, there were concerns regarding the
adequacy of visitor and service personnel parking. The subject proposal proposed only eight (8)
guest parking spaces while the Zoning Code typically requires at least 1/2 guest parking space per
unit for multiple family residential projects. The proposed 3 -story height poses certain public
safety concerns which could adversely impact the inhabitants as well as the _surrounding area
ingress and egress to the site are rather limited and pose certain traffic safety concerns: Possible
mitigation measures would require a significant redesign of the project and reduction in the scale
of the project such that it would likely be infeasible for development for low and moderate income
housing. Two plausible mitigation measures relative to this project would have been to reduce the
building to two stories from three stories or to elevate the 3 -story building so that the ground level
could be used for parking purposes. Both options are considered financially infeasible; the subject
proposal requested financial assistance in the amount of approximately $875,000 if the project were
to be fmanced with tax credits; any reduction in the number of dwelling units or additional
construction costs resulting from elevating the building to a 4 -story level would have necessitated
an even larger subsidy, beyond the financial resources of the Temple City Redevelopment Agency.
SECTION 3. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 97 -1298 is hereby denied.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to passage and adoption of this resolution and enter
it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1997.
ATTEST:
11111411°
/ 44..4
ty C erk
MAYOR
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97 -3571 was adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on 18th day of February, 1997 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilman- Breazeal, Budds, Gillanders, Souder, Wilson
NOES: Councilman -None
ABSENT: Councilman -None
1
1
1