HomeMy WebLinkAbout4. PLN-10-7559 - 7857 Florence Avenue
STAFF REPORT PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA DATE: JULY 20, 2011 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: BRIAN SAEKI, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DAVID BLUMENTHAL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: PLN-10-7559 (SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 10-18 & REVISION ‘N’ TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-66), A REQUEST TO ADD AN EXTERIOR PATIO TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT (GEORGE’S) THAT OPERATES
WITH AN ABC TYPE 47 (ON-SALE GENERAL, EATING PLACE) LICENSE AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7857 FLORENCE AVE, ZONED C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL). CEQA Staff has reviewed the
proposed use for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Upon completion of this review, it has been determined that this request is categorically exempt from
CEQA, pursuant to Guideline Section No. 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities). Categorical Exemptions are projects, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the
environment and have been exempted from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Class 1 consists of projects that involve no or negligible expansion of the existing
use. Inasmuch as the proposed patio is a small addition to the existing restaurant, staff considers it a negligible expansion of the existing use. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission adopt the following titled resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DENYING PLN-10-7559 (SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 10-18 & REVISION
‘N’ TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-66), A REQUEST TO ADD AN EXTERIOR PATIO TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT (GEORGE’S) THAT OPERATES WITH AN ABC TYPE 47 (ON-SALE GENERAL, EATING PLACE) LICENSE
AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7857 FLORENCE AVE, ZONED C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) CODE AUTHORITY The applicant is making her request pursuant to the provisions of Municipal
Code Section 9314.04, which allows the operation of restaurants with alcohol sales and live entertainment in the C-2 zone, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning
Commission’s authority to consider the request is set forth in Municipal Code Sections 9820 (Site Plan Reviews) and 9824 (Conditional Use Permits).
PLN-10-7559 – 7857 Florence Ave July 20, 2011 -Page 2 SITE LOCATION 7857 Florence Ave SITE DESCRIPTION A. Subject Property 1. Property Information Site Location: 7857 Florence Ave (AIN
6360-012-009) 2. Applicant Information Applicant: Property Owner: Jorge Navarro George’s Bar and Grill 7857 Florence Ave Downey CA 90240 George Efstathiou 7857 Florence Ave, Ste 100
Downey, CA 90240 3. CEQA Determination: Categorical Exemption (Class 1) 4. Noticing Information Applicant Notification: Required Action Date: June 21, 2011 August 20, 2011
PLN-10-7559 – 7857 Florence Ave July 20, 2011 -Page 3 B. Surrounding Properties North – The north side of the site is bounded by Dinsdale Street. The properties to the north of the project
site are either improved with single family homes that are within the R-1 7,500 zone and have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential; or are improved with apartments
that are within the R-3 zone and have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential. South -The properties to the south of the project site, across Florence Ave,
is zoned C-1 and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial. These properties are improved with a variety of commercial uses. East -The side of the subject site is
zoned C-2 and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial. The site is improved with a CVS store. West -The property to the west of the subject site is zoned C-1 and
has a General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial. The property is improved with an office building. C. Site Photographs
PLN-10-7559 – 7857 Florence Ave July 20, 2011 -Page 4 BACKGROUND The subject site is a 2.68 acre irregular parcel that is located on the north side of Florence, east of Paramount Blvd.
The site consists of three separate parcels that are under the same ownership, share common access, and a common parking lot. The site is improved with two (2) fast food restaurants
and an office/retail building. Parking for all of the uses is primarily located on the north side of the buildings. The site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of GC (General Commercial)
and is dual zoned with the northern and eastern portions (containing the parking lots) being in the P-B (Parking Buffer) zone and the remainder portions of the lot being within the C-2
(General Commercial) zone. On February 1, 1995, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66, thereby allowing a restaurant to operate at the subject site with the
sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption. On June 17, 1995, the Planning Commission approved Revision ‘A’ to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66 (officially numbered as Conditional
Use Permit No. 95-21), allowing the business owner to convert the restaurant into a private club. This Conditional Use Permit was never utilized and thus deemed null and void. On December
18, 1996, the Planning Commission approved Revision ‘B’ to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66 (officially numbered as a modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66). This revision
allowed the establishment of live entertainment at the site for a trial period of one (1) year. On December 17, 1997, the Planning Commission approved Revision ‘C’ to Conditional Use
Permit No. 94-66 (officially numbered as a modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66). This revision extended the trial period for live entertainment for an additional year. This
decision was upheld on appeal to the City Council. On March 17, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Revision ‘D’ to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66 (officially numbered as a modification
to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66), thereby granting a retroactive extension of the live entertainment trial period for an additional year. On August 18, 1999, the Planning Commission
denied Revision ‘E’ to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66 (officially numbered as Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66A). This revision was a request to expand the dance floor and add a party
room to the business. The Planning Commission’s denial was based on the concern the expansion would essentially convert the business from a restaurant with alcohol and live entertainment
to primarily being a bar. On January 5, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Revision ‘F’ to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66 (officially numbered as a modification to Conditional
Use Permit No. 94-66), which revoked the previous approvals for live entertainment at the establishment, but maintained the approval for the sale of alcohol. This action was based on
business operator illegally expanding the business and failure to comply with all conditions of of approval. The Planning Commission action was upheld on appeal to the City Council.
On July 18, 2001, the Planning Commission approved Revision ‘G’ to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66 (officially numbered as Conditional Use Permit No. 01-49), thereby allowing the reestablishment
of live entertainment at the site for a one (1) year trial period.
PLN-10-7559 – 7857 Florence Ave July 20, 2011 -Page 5 On July 17, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Revision ‘H’ to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66 (officially numbered as a modification
to Conditional Use Permit No. 01-49), via Minute Action, to extend the trial period for live entertainment for an additional year. This trial period expired without extension. On November
5, 2003, the Planning Commission approved Revision ‘I’ to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66 (officially numbered Conditional Use Permit No. 01-49(b)), thereby reestablishing live entertainment
for one (1) year and modifying the conditions of approval. Subsequently, the business owner allowed the modification to the Conditional Use Permit to expire. On January 19, 2005, the
Planning Commission approved Revision ‘J’ to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66 (officially numbered Conditional Use Permit No. 01-49(c)), to reestablish live entertainment on the site
for one (1) year. On October 5, 2005, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing to consider the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit, due to the business owner’s non-compliance
with the conditions of approval; however, it came to light that a new owner (Mr. Jorge Navarro, who is the current owner) was purchasing the restaurant. As a result, the Planning Commission
directed staff to return with a resolution to extend the Conditional Use Permit. On October 19, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a continued public hearing to consider Revision
‘K’ to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66 (officially numbered modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 01-49(c)), at the conclusion of which the Planning Commission tabled the issue.
This meant the applicant was allowed to continue to operate the restaurant with alcohol sales, but without live entertainment. On May 17, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Revision
‘L’ to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66 (officially numbered Conditional Use Permit No. 06-60(M)), thereby reestablishing live entertainment at the site for another one (1) year trial
period. On May 2, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Revision ‘M’ to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66 (officially numbered as Extension to Conditional Use Permit No. 06-60(M)), thereby
making the allowance for live entertainment at the site permanent. On February 24, 2010, the applicant submitted a request for Revision ‘N’ to Conditional Use Permit No. 94-66 and Site
Plan Review No. 10-18 (hereinafter referred to PLN-10-7559), requested to provide an outdoor patio at the restaurant. This application was subsequently deemed incomplete by staff due
to missing information on the project plans. On June 20, 2011, the applicant submitted the remaining material needed to deem the application complete. Accordingly, staff deemed the request
complete on July 1, 2011. On July, 7, 2011, notice of the pending application published in the Downey Patriot. Furthermore, the notice was mailed to all property owners within 500’ of
the subject site. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS The existing 5,376 square foot restaurant currently operates with a Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 47 (On-Sale General, Eating Place)
license and live entertainment. The applicant’s proposal is to expand the restaurant by providing an outdoor patio on the east side of
PLN-10-7559 – 7857 Florence Ave July 20, 2011 -Page 6 the building. The proposed patio will be 11’ deep by 35’ wide (385 s.f.). As proposed, the applicant will surround the patio with
a four foot tall wrought iron fence and provide a fabric awning above the patio. The location of the patio will necessitate the removal of two of the columns from the colonnade on the
building. The four foot deep colonnade on the east side of the building is separated from the drive aisle by an additional six inches of landscaping and a four foot wide walkway. Inasmuch
as the applicant’s proposed patio is 11’ deep, it will block the walkway and encroach into the drive aisle. To exacerbate this further, the walkway provides the accessibility access
to the site from Florence Ave, which results in the applicant needing to provide a four foot wide walkway around the proposed patio. The net result of the applicant’s proposal will reduce
the driveway width by 6’-6”. Currently the drive aisle is 23’-7” wide, as measured from the edge edge of the walkway to the edge of the drive thru for KFC, and is considered a non-conforming
two-way drive aisle. Should the Planning Commission approve the request, the width drive aisle would be reduced to 17’-2”, which is enough for one-way traffic, but not two. It is staff’s
opinion that in order to avoid a conflict with traffic exiting the KFC drive thru, one way traffic would have to be limited to egress only. It is staff’s further opinion that this can
have a drastic effect to on-site circulation since it will limit access to some parking areas and provide limited access to the site from Florence Avenue. During staff’s review of this
request, a concern about the number of calls for service the City’s Police Department receives about this business has been raised. For purposes of this report, a call for service only
includes robberies, assaults, disturbances, drunk subject, person brandishing a weapon, and keep the peace calls. The applicant purchased the business in 2005. Accordingly, staff analyzed
analyzed calls for service from, and including, 2006 through 2010. Over this five year period, the restaurant has generated 85 calls for service. In comparison, Gloria’s Restaurant has
generated 37 calls, Downey Brewing generated 10 calls, Downey’s Billiards generated 26 calls, and Anarchy Library generated 62 calls for service. It is staff’s opinion that the 85 calls
over the five years has placed an undue burden on stretched Police resources, which has resulted in a potential impact to the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff further believes
that it would not be prudent to expand the business at this time since it could result in additional impacts to the public. Findings Based on the requirements of the Municipal Code,
the applicant is required to obtain approval of a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit prior to expanding the business with an outdoor patio. Municipal Code 9820.08 requires the
Planning Commission to adopt seven findings in order to approve a Site Plan Review. A discussion of of the findings is as follows: 1. The site plan is consistent with the goals and polices
embodied in the General Plan and other applicable plans and policies adopted by the Council. The proposed site plan is to approve an outdoor patio for an existing restaurant. In order
to approve the patio, the drive aisle next to the restaurant would need to be converted to oneway egress from the site only. Due to the location of the other driveways on the site, this
could potentially force motorists to access the site from the adjoining local streets (Tweedy Lane, Dinsdale Street, and Smallwood Ave). General Plan Program 2.1.2.5 states, “Discourage
projects that generate high amounts of traffic onto local and collector streets.” It is staff’s opinion that approval of this patio would be contrary to this program and the
PLN-10-7559 – 7857 Florence Ave July 20, 2011 -Page 7 policy it implements. As such, staff feels that this finding cannot be made in positive manner. 2. The proposed development is in
accordance with the purposes and objectives of Article IX and the zone in which the site is located. The subject site is within the C-2 (General Commercial) zone. According to the Municipal
Code, “the C-2 Zone is intended to provide for and encourage the orderly development of general commercial uses, with a wide variety of goods and services, for the residents of the entire
City, with provisions designed to ensure that such commerce will be efficient, functionally related, and compatible with adjacent noncommercial development.” As previously noted, approval
of the patio would result in a reduced access to the site that has potential adverse impacts to the surrounding residential areas. This is in conflict with the intent of the C-2 zone,
which encourages development that is compatible with surrounding residential areas. As such, staff feels that this finding cannot be made. 3. The proposed development’s site plan and
its design features, including architecture and landscaping, will integrate harmoniously and enhance the character and design of the site, the immediate neighborhood, and the surrounding
areas of the City. The applicant’s proposal will involve breaking the existing colonnade and introducing a new awning. Staff feels that this provides additional articulation to the building
and would provide a pleasant look. Provided the awning matches the other awnings on the building, staff believes that this would integrate the patio harmoniously into the building. Notwithstanding
this, staff has previously noted in this report that there is a concern about potential traffic circulation issues with the approval of the patio. For this reason, it is staff’s opinion
that the project does not integrate with the overall site or the surrounding area. Therefore, staff feels that this finding cannot be made in a positive manner. 4. The site plan and
location of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicate that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of
the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effects of the development from the view of the public streets. The location of the patio creates
a circulation problem on site. In staff’s opinion, this demonstrates the applicant’s lack of consideration to pedestrian and vehicle circulation on the site or the functional aspects
of the site. Therefore, staff believes that this finding cannot be made in a positive manner.
PLN-10-7559 – 7857 Florence Ave July 20, 2011 -Page 8 5. The proposed development will improve the community appearance by preventing extremes of dissimilarity or monotony in new construction
or in alterations of facilities. The applicant’s proposal will involve breaking the existing colonnade and introducing a new awning. Staff feels that this provides additional articulation
to the building and would provide a pleasant look. Provided the awning matches the other awnings on the building, staff believes that this would integrate the patio harmoniously into
the building. As such, staff feels that this finding can be made in a positive manner. 6. The site plan and design considerations shall tend to upgrade property in the immediate neighborhood
and surrounding areas with an accompanying betterment of conditions affecting the public health, safety, comfort, and welfare. The proposed patio will expand an existing restaurant.
Based on a review of calls for service over the previous five years, it has been noted noted that this business requires an excessive amount of Police resources. It is staff’s opinion
that expanding the use will result in additional resources being required to respond to incidents at the subject site, which will result in an adverse impact to the public health, safety,
and welfare. As such, staff feels that his finding cannot be made in a positive manner. 7. The proposed development’s site plan and its design features will include graffitiresistant
features and materials in accordance with the requirements of Section 4960 of Chapter 10 of Article IV of this Code. The proposed patio will be surrounded by a wrought iron fence and
covered with a fabric awning. In staff’s opinion, these types of materials are naturally graffiti resistant since the wrought iron is not conducive to graffiti and the awning is at a
height that would prevent someone from marking it with graffiti. As such, Staff believes that this finding can be adopted. In addition to the Site Plan Review findings, Municipal Code
Section 9824.06 requires the Planning Commission to adopt four findings in order to approve the Conditional Use Permit. A discussion of the findings follows: 1. The requested Conditional
Use Permit will not adversely affect the purpose and intent of this chapter or the City’s General Plan or the public convenience or general welfare of persons residing or working in
the neighborhood thereof. It is a goal of the General Plan (Goal 5.4) to “Promote the protection of life and property from criminal activities.” As noted in the discussion section of
this report, the existing restaurant generates a disproportionate amount of Police calls for service as compared to other businesses. It is staff’s opinion that this results in an additional
strain on already stretched Police resources, which in turn can prevent the City’s Police Department from quickly responding to other criminal activities. As a result, staff believes
that approval of the Conditional Use Permit will have an adverse affect on the General Plan and the general welfare of persons residing in the area. Therefore, staff feels that this
finding cannot be adopted.
PLN-10-7559 – 7857 Florence Ave July 20, 2011 -Page 9 2. The requested use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located. Even though the subject site is in a fully developed area of the City, with little to no vacant properties in the immediate area; approval of the Conditional
Use Permit, in staff’s opinion, will result in impacts to the local streets and to Police resources. These impacts are severe enough that they will have an adverse affect on the properties
in the area. As such, staff feels that this finding cannot be adopted. 3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed
use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area. The proposed project is to expand the existing restaurant by adding an outdoor patio. However, this expansion will result in the
existing two-way drive aisle into a one-way egress only driveway. It is staff’s opinion that the loss of the two way traffic on this driveway creates detrimental impact to the on-site
circulation and limits the access to the site from Florence Ave. Staff further believes that the site is currently fully developed and the additional patio area over-builds the site
for its size and shape. As such, staff feels that this finding cannot be adopted. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways
in the area. Access to the subject site is from Florence Ave, a primary arterial street in the City. Staff has reviewed the proposal and any potential increase in traffic caused by operation
of the business. It is staff’s opinion that Florence has sufficient capacity to handle traffic generated from the site. Nonetheless, approval of the project will result in the loss of
one driveway for ingress from Florence. This in turn, in staff’s opinion, will create additional traffic on local streets (Tweedy Lane, Dinsdale Street, and Smallwood Ave) that surround
the site. Staff feels that this will create an undue burden on these streets and, as a result, this finding cannot be made in a positive manner. CORRESPONDENCE As of the date that this
report was printed, staff has not received any correspondence regarding this matter. CONCLUSION The operation of a restaurant with alcohol and live entertainment at the subject site
has a long problematic history for the City. Even under the current ownership, the City is seeing an exorbitant number of Police calls for service. Staff believes that an additional
problem with the proposed project is it creates an adverse impact to the surrounding area. Based on the analysis contained within this report, staff is concluding that the proposed patio
addition will result in an impact to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Furthermore, as noted above, staff believes that none of the required findings needed to approve
a Conditional Use Permit and only two of the required seven findings for the Site Plan Review can be made in a positive manner. As such, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
deny the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit (PLN-10-7559). H:\Community Development\Blumenthal\Projects\Florence_7857\Staff Report_2011-7-20.doc
PLN-10-7559 – 7857 Florence Ave July 20, 2011 -Page 10 Exhibit ‘A’ – Aerial Photograph
PLN-10-7559 – 7857 Florence Ave July 20, 2011 -Page 11 Exhibit ‘B’ – Zoning Map N Subject Site