HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 05/16/2012MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
DOWNEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2012
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVENUE
DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA
6:30 P.M.
I. A Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held May 16, 2012. After the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag, Chairman Murray called roll at 6:33 p.m.
II. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Hector Lujan, District 5
Louis Morales, District 3, Vice-Chairman
Robert Kiefer, District 2
Ernie Garcia, District 4
Michael Murray, District 1, Chairman
ALSO PRESENT: William Davis, City Planner
Yvette M. Abich, City Attorney
Jessica Flores, Associate Planner
Kevin Nguyen, Assistant Planner
Theresa Donahue, Secretary
III. MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Morales, seconded by Commissioner Lujan and passed
by a unanimous vote to approve the Minutes of May 2, 2012, as presented.
IV. AGENDA CHANGES:
Mr. Davis stated there were no changes to the agenda.
V. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION: No report was provided.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Chairman Murray noted there were no Consent Calendar items on
tonight’s agenda.
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. PLN-12-00067 (SITE PLAN REVIEW/VARIANCE)
Location: 10825 Lakewood Boulevard
Owner: Timothy and Irma L. Nilan
Applicant: Felipe Contreras
Staff: William Davis
CEQA: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this request
has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15303 (Class 3, New construction or conversion of small structures).
Request: A request to change the use of a building from Single Family Residential to
General Office, and a Variance to reduce the required number of on-site
parking spaces and reduce width of driveway to less than twenty-five (25’) feet,
on property zoned C-P (Professional Office).
Chairman Murray opened the continued public hearing, affirming that the public hearing has been left
open. He invited staff to present staff’s report.
William Davis, City Planner, provided an overview of the case, as had been presented at the
Commission’s May 2, 2012 meeting. He noted that the applicant had obtained permits for portions of the
work performed at the property; however, the applicant made other significant changes unlawfully,
because the changes were made without City approvals or permits. Mr. Davis restated those
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 16, 2012 – PAGE 1
Page 2
aspects of the property that do not meet the City’s development standards for office uses within the C-P
(Professional Office) zone: The Applicant’s plan provides only four parking spaces on the subject
property, which are less than five spaces as the use requires; the driveway and parking lot do not meet
the Code requirements for drainage; the driveway is only 13’-4” wide but the Code requires it to be
twenty-five feet wide; the northerly side yard setback is only 2’-4” rather that the required five-foot
setback distance. Mr. Davis stated that the Planning Commission must make all six Variance findings to
approve Mr. Nilan’s application. He reviewed the findings with the Commissioners. Mr. Davis noted that
it is difficult to make the findings since there is no physical hardship present on the property that
prevents the Applicant from designing a use that meets the development standards. The substandard
conditions were created by the actions of the applic ant. He stated the Applicant could employ another
design, without approval of a variance. He mentioned that the property is only fifty feet wide, which is
less than some properties in the vicinity, but the lot width was adequate for the development of the
structure while meeting the City’s standards.
Commissioner Murray asked how approving PLN-12-00067 might set a precedent, whether it would
affect only those structures along Lakewood Boulevard, if it might affect properties throughout the City.
Mr. Davis stated that an approval could establish a precedent, noting that approving such variances could
indicate that the Code standard needs to be reviewed.
City Attorney, Yvette Abich Garcia cited Finding #4: “That the variance requested will not confer on the
applicant any special privilege that is denied to other lands, structures or buildings in the same vicinity in
which the property is located.” She said this Finding was one that would be easily met in another case,
theoretically, but she also noted that any other variance requests would still be required to meet all the
other findings. An approval of this variance would not automatically justify an approval of another.
Chairman Murray noted that most of the developments along the street have double-sized lots, not a
single lot like this one.
Commissioner Kiefer asked if the other developments along the street are conforming.
Mr. Davis noted that there are developments that were built more than five years ago when the required
driveway width was only 20-feet, so they are now considered nonconforming.
Commissioner Kiefer noted those driveways ar e still wider than the proposed 13-foot driveway.
Commissioner Morales made a comparison of the singl e lot developments to the double lot developments,
noting that other single lot developments along this portion of Lakewood would also run into a similar
problem if they try to convert to office.
Mr. Davis noted that the other single lot widths Commissioner Morales pointed out are 60 feet wide, while
this lot is only 50-feet wide.
Chairman Murray asked what another building, three lots over, would be required to do to convert their
house to office.
Mr. Davis noted that all six findings to approve a variance would be required, along with meeting the
standards of the zone and would have to meet the Building Code requirements for the change of use.
Commissioner Lujan noted that the lot size is an issue; and noted the mix of uses are residential and
office.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 16, 2012 – PAGE 2
Page 3
Commissioner Morales pointed out that the deficient driveway width could be corrected by demolishing
the building and by putting the parking in the front, which could also provide a larger structure; however,
he noted it would result in a different character for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Garcia asked to clarify the uses along the street. Are they commercial or residential?
Mr. Davis noted there are both residential and commercial activity uses along Lakewood Boulevard, in this
vicinity, but the street is transitioning into office use, which is consistent with the General Plan.
Chairman Murray invited the Applicant to address the Commission.
Timothy Nilan, Applicant, 9332 Gainford Street, Downey, 90240 addressed the Commission. He
responded to Commissioner Garcia’s question noting that residential can no longer be built along the
street, only professional office. Mr. Nilan stated that the four parking spaces he provided are sufficient for
their operation, explaining that the office appointm ents are staggered, he has only one office assistant who
does not drive; the existing driveway width is not a problem for their amount of activity and a 20’-25’ wide
driveway is not necessary. He stated that the widening of the driveway would create a very narrow
building which would look strange and not in character with the neighborhood; and would be an investment
suicide. In terms of permits, Mr. Nilan explained that he had secured several permits, including framing of
tenant improvements and those plans include a stamp by a structural engi neer and the improvements
were done by a licensed contractor, with City inspections, including all the electrical and plumbing;
therefore the integrity of their interior improvements has not been compromised.
Mr. Nilan stated one of the concerns stated by the Building Inspector in regards to the paving related to
water drainage and that the inspector had provided a correction on the plans that flashing below the
weepscreed be provided to keep the water away from the building’s structure.
Commissioner Kiefer inquired if permits were secured for the concrete work.
Mr. Nilan said he did not think his contractor applied for a permit, but the inspector did comment on the
concrete work. He said that he would have his contractor address that in a minute. However, Mr. Nilan
said he was more than willing to pay for those permits now. He also noted that the air conditioning
condenser was only three feet from the property line, 12-feet from the structure next door, which does not
meet Code. He would like to have that included in this request to permit the structural changes. He stated
that he has owned the building for four years, and used as a rental for awhile.
Commissioner Morales asked Mr. Nilan about the num ber of employees he has and if they get many
walk-ins.
Mr. Nilan stated that he has one employee and she does no t drive a vehicle. They get very few walk-ins,
maybe one or two a month. In response to questions and comments from the Commissioners, Mr. Nilan
provided the following information: 1) They stagger appoint ments so that they do not overlap; 2) He (Mr.
Nilan) spends most of his time in court; therefore, he does not require his clients to come in numerous
times, but perhaps just come back to sign documents.
Commissioner Kiefer asked Mr. Nilan if he realized that a variance would run with the land and that
another occupant might not have the same set of circumstances.
Mr. Nilan responded that it is a small office and suffi cient parking is provided, not like other locations he
has been where people are fighting for parking.
Commissioner Lujan asked the applicant to verify if he said the inspector had signed off on the paving.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 16, 2012 – PAGE 3
Page 4
Mr. Nilan responded that he did not see a receipt for paying for a paving permit; however, Mr. Davis had
told him that it had not been included and he took him at his word. However, he would refer that question
to his contractor. Mr. Nilan then asked his contractor to address this need for a permit. He also verified
that his willingness to pay for all required permits.
Mr. Davis noted that the permits that were obtained are listed on Page 3 of staff’s report. Chairman
Murray reviewed them verbally.
th
Felipe Contreras, 3837 E. 7 Street, Long Beach stated that he was hired for the change of use permit
from residential to commercial. He stated that he then reviewed the plans for the interior changes and he
thought it was more a “combo package” permit. He stated that most of the work done seemed to have
been included on the permits.
Chairman Murray stated that it looked good from the street.
Commissioner Kiefer asked if staff had been aware t hat the building was converting from residential to
commercial when the permits were being processed.
Mr. Davis said that Planning staff became aware of the changes after it was brought to their attention
several months after the permits were issued. At that time, staff was also notified of the additional work
that was done without the benefit of permits.
Commissioner Kiefer asked about the permit for the air conditioning equipment, and whether that was a
part of this (variance) request or on a permit?
Mr. Davis responded, he was not familiar with the air conditioning unit being a problem. He thought it was
approved at five feet, but it is not a part of this variance request.
Mr. Contreras commented that an Engineer approved the original plans approved by the City; therefore,
he believed the removal of the wall was done within the City’s standards and was not a breach of
integrity.
Chairman Murray asked staff for any correspondence received.
Mr. Davis responded that no correspondence had been received.
Chairman Murray invited members of the audience to address the Commission.
Wishing to address the Commission in opposition:
Medhat Iskarous, 8420 Lexington Road addressed the Commission. His testimony included the following
comments: 1) He owns the property adjacent to and north of the property under discussion; 2) His
concern is for an attorney who began a business without the proper permits, who began practicing law,
sidestepping the appropriate steps for approval, and thus hurting the City; 3) Mr. Nilan is claiming a
hardship after he has already done the work. He is trying to justify those deficient conditions by stating
the number of employees that will be working on-site. Mr. Iskarous asked the Commission what will
happen if the employee buys a car. He asked if t he City was going to adjust parking requirements based
on an individual’s personal parking needs. 4) Regarding the applicant’s comment that the paving was
included on a permit, he pointed out that there is Federal Requirement that was not considered, so how
can this have been approved. 5) He noted that the air conditioning unit is only inches from the property
line, which has to be looked at as well.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 16, 2012 – PAGE 4
Page 5
Mr. Iskarous stated that he objects to the Commission approving this requested Variance since it will set
a precedent encouraging future business owners and/or home owners to do work without permits
knowing they can correct this issue if they get caught. He noted that there are similarly-sized properties
in the CP zones throughout the City, who may expect variance approvals, if this is application is
approved. He stated a concern that putting a legal office next door to a residence and bringing in
questionable clientele could bring down the value of his property. Mr. Iskarous stated that he agrees with
staff’s recommendation and urged the Commission to deny the Variance, noting that the entire property
requires variances, and that he isn’t sure what is actually right on the property. He stated this project is
not good for the City.
Chairman Murray asked Mr. Iskarous about the size of his property further south on Lakewood
Boulevard, that he developed into an office building.
Mr. Iskarous responded that they developed the parcel at Lakewood Boulevard and Third Street. The
parcel is a 1-1/2 size lot (95-feet). He has owned the adjacent parcel just north of the subject site for about
20 years. It is the same size as the subject property.
Chairman Murray offered the applicant rebuttal time but Mr. Nilan did not wish to speak further.
Chairman Murray asked staff for their recommendation.
Mr. Davis stated staff’s recommendation is that the Commission deny the requested Variance and adopt
Resolution No. 12-2766 reflecting this decision.
There being no questions regarding staff’s recommendation, Chairman Murray closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
Chairman Murray reviewed the requirements for approving a variance, reading into the record the purpose
of variances, “A device that grants a property owner relief from certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
because of a particular physical surrounding shape, topography, or condition of property, whereby
compliance would result in a particular hardship on the owner as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience, or desire to make more money. A variance may be granted, for example to reduce yard or
setback requirements or a number of parking or loading spaces.” He went on to say “…obviously we are
not happy that the applicant went ahead and converted this, but we have to look at what is the best use of
this property and is it an economic hardship.”
City Attorney Garcia affirmed for the Planning Commission that each of the findings must be made in order
to approve the Variance; conversely if there one finding that cannot be met, the variance must be denied.
Mr. Davis asked Ms. Garcia to verify if economic har dship is a consideration for meeting these findings.
Ms. Garcia responded, “No, economic hardship is not a finding.” She referred the Commissioners to Page
7 of the Staff Report and in the attached Resolution, to review each of the required findings. She offered to
review them one by one for the Commission. C hairman Murray approved of this suggestion.
City Attorney Garcia reviewed each of the required findings. The Commissioners had no questions
regarding the findings.
Commissioner Morales said he sympathized with the applicant, but affirmed that economic hardship is not
a reason to approve a variance. He queried what would happen if the structure were to be destroyed,
would the City allow it to be rebuilt, and to what standard.
Mr. Davis stated that the Code applies to legal nonconforming structures, but this structure lost its legal
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 16, 2012 – PAGE 5
Page 6
status. Legally constructed nonconforming structures may rebuild back to 50% of its assessed value.
Commissioner Morales stated that the City’s ultimate goal is have professional offices along this street,
which makes this a tough issue. Looking at whether or not a precedent would be established, he noted
that an approval would not necessarily set a precedent, since all these conditions would have to be
duplicated. Most variance requests are parking in nature. He stated that overall he did not think an
approval would impact other such properties, since the driveway was already established, as was the 2’-
4” side yard. Commissioner Morales also said that the applicant’s change of use brings the activity closer
to the direction where the City wants to go, or lessening the nonconformity.
Commissioner Lujan stated that the applicant’s use is in line with what the City wants, and the direction the
City is moving. He wants to be pro-business and w ants to improve the situation and provide what the
people of that area want.
Commissioner Kiefer said it is a tough situation. He said he is not opposed to changing from residential to
office use, but has a problem with supporting a variance. He said he is convinced that the Commission
cannot make the findings to support this variance from the City’s Development Code, since that requires
the Commission to find that this property has pecu liar and unique features. He said he cannot see how
that is possible without setting precedence. Commissi oner Kiefer noted that other similarly-sized parcels
in the area switched from residential to professional office use successfully. He said an approval will
create two negative scenarios: one will invite lowered development standard that will cause parking and
safety issues; and by approving this variance without making the required findings, the Planning
Commission opens the City up to valid complain ts and lawsuits from nearby property owners.
Commissioner Kiefer said that although the building looks nice, it was not done in the proper fashion and
he is not in favor of issuing a variance.
Commissioner Garcia said that he is on the same page with Commissioners Morales and Lujan; that the
applicant has done a lot to improve the property; and t he County of Los Angeles recognizes his property
as commercial. He noted that the applicant is sorry for the work done without permits and he is willing to
pay for them.
Chairman Murray asked of the City Attorney if the variance is granted tonight, will the applicant meet all
the development standards of the City.
Mrs. Garcia responded that if the variance is approved, only those items that have been addressed in this
analysis will be included. However, any other requirement will have to be complied with.
Chairman Murray cited, and City Planner Davis affirmed, the variance applied for includes: a deficient side
yard setback, deficient driveway width, and an i nadequate number of parking spaces. It does not include
the air conditioning unit, for example.
Ms. Garcia added that if the Commission is going in that direction, she would recommend that they direct
staff to bring a Resolution back stating the revised findings to support. In addition, she suggested the
Commission provide enough direction to staff to be able to write those findings in a positive manner.
Mr. Davis stated that it will be difficult to make those findings, particularly because the Applicant violated
the nonconforming section of the Code.
Chairman Murray added that it is difficult. Although he likes the appearance of the improvements, he has
a problem with the violations to the Code and the impact on neighboring properties, with the property
owner next door having met required Code standards. He said he did not think it was possible for him to
support the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 16, 2012 – PAGE 6
Page 7
Commissioner Kiefer stated to his fellow Commissi oners, he cannot see how it is possible to approve all
six findings.
Chairman Murray stated his concern that an approval would be precedent-setting; even though any future
variance request would have to be evaluated individually, as well. He noted that an approval can also be
appealed to Council for a final decision.
Ms. Garcia clarified the Commissioners options to either approve the Resolution before them to deny the
variance; or provide direction to staff whereby they can make findings in a positive manner. She
suggested looking at each required finding. The Commissioners identified some elements, as follows:
Finding #1 , Uniqueness:
Commissioner Morales stated that the lot width of 50-feet creates a situation for the applicant to convert to
professional office, requiring modification to the building. He noted that the City supports the transition to
professional office and the option of placing parking in the front of the property would change the look of
the street; issues include consistency, appearance.
Commissioner Kiefer said the Commission has to also consider that a variance approved here would have
the potential to allow for many other variances throughout the City.
Commissioner Garcia asked City Attorney Yvette Ga rcia if she had indicated that an approval would not
necessarily set a precedent.
Ms. Garcia responded that she had indicated that an approval tonight would be based on these unique
circumstances and although such variance approval c an be cited to support a similar request, any other
requests would have to be reviewed based on their own particular circumstances and all those findings
must be met in a positive manner.
Commissioner Morales asked staff, if denied tonight and subsequently appealed to City Council and later
denied by Council, could the applicant reconvert to residential?
Mr. Davis responded, yes, staff’s direction would be that the Commission direct the Applicant to remove all
signs and commercial advertising from the site, submit all requisite plans and applications to the City’s
Planning and Building and Safety Divisions to remove all unpermitted alterations, or alterations conducted
for commercial purposes and to restore the site for residential use. They would also need to legalize or
remove the unpermitted paving and construct a 2-car garage and structure. This is what they were
directed to do in January. Mr. Davis stated his recommendation is that the Commission find that there are
no unusual circumstances to support this variance.
Commissioner Kiefer stated that he also agreed that the law office is appropriate for the location, but he
cannot possibly make positive finding to support a variance, which is held to a higher standard.
Finding #2, Rights of Applicant would be denied, if not approved:
Commissioner Morales stated that the reduced lot size restricts the type of development that was
permitted four lots to the north.
Mr. Davis stated, the question could be reworded to ask, is it possible for the applicant to develop a law
office at this building while meeting the standards of the zone? And the answer to that would be “yes”,
therefore he would not be deprived a right that is given to another property owner within the zone.
Mr. Davis continued to read the Findings statements:
Finding #3: Exceptional conditions or circumstances? Do you find the structure to be unique because it
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 16, 2012 – PAGE 7
Page 8
was 50-feet wide, or it was a house and difficult to meet the conditions? Or, that special conditions are not
created by making this approval.
Finding #4: An approval would not confer a special priv ilege? By allowing this request you are not
granting a special privilege that the Commission wouldn’t allow another developer to do.
Finding #5:
Will be in harmony and not adversely affect the General Plan. Regarding the County’s
consideration of the building as an office, Mr. Davis explained that the County is picking up the City’s
zoning for the property. However, professional offices are supposed to comply with the City’s
development standards and General Plan. This finding assures that the City would evaluate a variance
application in such a way that a proposal would comply with the City’s development standards. This
finding would provide that the Commission cannot give someone a privilege that it would not give
someone else.
Finding 6:
The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and the variance
is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure.
Mr. Davis stated the Commission is addressing an applicant who has done some things that were not
lawful, yet the Commission would be saying it is ok to do so by making this Finding. By making this
finding, the Commission would be concluding that t he Applicant met the minimum development standards
for properties in the CP zone, not based on their desire to do something that did not meet the City’s Code,
but because the project reflected the existing conditions at the time.
Mr. Davis noted that if the Commission says “No” to any one of those six Findings, they cannot approve
this Variance.
It was moved by Commissioner Kiefer and seconded by Chairman Murray to adopt Resolution 12-2766
denying PLN-12-00067 and thereby denying the Variance. The motion failed by a vote of 2-3, with
Commissioners: Lujan, Morales and Garcia voting “No.”
City Attorney Garcia stated that motion had failed, so the next motion would be approve the variance
application and direct staff to bring a Resolution back at the next meeting for approval.
It was moved by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Lujan and passed by a vote of 3-2,
with Commissioners Kiefer and Murray voting “No”, to direct staff to bring back a resolution for approval of
PLN-12-00067 to the next meeting.
Commissioner Lujan stated that he would have to leave the meeting at this time, due to a personal
obligation. He then left the Chambers.
2. PLN-12-00114 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION)
Location: 10441-45 Lakewood Boulevard
Owner: Phillipy Development, Inc.
Applicant: James Phillipy
Staff: Jessica Flores
CEQA: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this request
has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities).
Request: A request for Revision ‘B’ to an existing Conditional Use Permit (PLN-10-08048)
to modify the conditions of approval allowing for the daily closure of thirteen
parking stalls from 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Monday thru Friday for use as an
outdoor playground, on property zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial).
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 16, 2012 – PAGE 8
Page 9
Chairman Murray noted staff’s recommendation was to continue this item to the next meeting.
It was moved by Commissioner Morales, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and passed by a unanimous
vote of those present (4-0-1) with Commission Lujan absent, to continue this item to June 6, 2012.
3. PLN-12-00107 (SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT)
Location: 10830-10846 Downey Avenue
Owner: Saint George Greek Orthodox Church, Inc.
Applicant: Christina Davilos
Staff: William Davis
CEQA: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this request
has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15304(e) (Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land).
Request: A request to conduct a Greek Festival on two consecutive days (June 2 and
June 3, 2012) on property zoned DDSP (Downtown Downey Specific Plan).
Chairman Murray opened the public hearing for PLN-12-00107. Ms. Donahue affirmed proof of
publication.
William Davis, City Planner, presented staff’s report and accompanying PowerPoint. He stated that
the concerns that the Planning Commissioners ra ised during previous hearings on special events
were taken into consideration while reviewing this application. Staff included the appropriate
conditions of approval to address the availability of adequate parking for event-goers. He identified
those parking areas for to the Commission. Mr. Davis stated staff’s recommendation was for
approval.
Chairman Murray invited the applicant to come forward. The applicant was not present.
Chairman Murray asked if the applicant had been notified. Mr. Davis informed the Commission that
the applicant had been provided a copy of the report and was aware of the hearing date. He stated
staff’s recommendation was that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 12-2767.
There being no questions regarding staff’s recommendation, Chairman Murray closed the public
hearing.
The Planning Commissioners expressed their support for this annual event, and noted there was
nothing unusual associated with this year’s request.
It was moved by Commissioner Kiefer, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and passed by a 4-0-1
vote with Commissioner Lujan absent, to adopt Resolution No. 12-2767, approving PLN-12-00107
(Special Event).
4. PLN-12-00090 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
Location: 12456 Bellflower Boulevard
Owner: William Greenbeck, c/o Downey Land Limited
Applicant: Liza Porras, c/o 3 Velvet Bellas, Inc.
Staff: Jessica Flores
CEQA: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this request
has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities).
Request: A request to allow a fitness studio on property zoned C-M (Commercial-
Manufacturing).
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 16, 2012 – PAGE 9
Page 10
Chairman Murray opened the public hearing for PLN-12-00090 (Conditional Use Permit). Ms.
Donahue affirmed proof of publication.
Jessica Flores, Associate Planner, presented staff’s report and accompanying PowerPoint. She
pointed out that the property has 491 parking spaces available parking on-site, which is significantly
more than the required 320 parking spaces. She reviewed the hours of operation and the program’s
planned activities. Ms. Flores noted that the site is ideal for the type of noise that would be generated
by the fitness studio since there are no sensitive uses located nearby and the zoning is Commercial-
Manufacturing. However, Condition #5 provides that any noise generated from the activities comply
with the Municipal Code Section 4600.
Representing the applicant, Cynthia Magsombol, 1924 Allingham Avenue, Cerritos addressed the
Commission, describing the fitness studio concept that they want to provide to residents, noting that
the woman’s activities will be on one side, while the men’s activities would be on the other side.
She noted that their program would begin with an initial membership of $20 per month, but after that
the fee will be based on usage; but no contracts are required. Ms. Magsombol stated that they
have no other such facilities but she and her sist er, Leeza, have had experience at Bally’s and as a
fitness trainer. In addition, they hope to have four certified instructors and four certified trainers.
They do not plan on selling food, and there are no showers.
Chairman Murray asked the applicant if she’d read and understood the conditions of approval.
The applicant affirmed that she had read and agreed to the conditions of approval.
Chairman Murray asked if any correspondence had been received.
Ms. Flores responded no correspondence had been received on this item.
Chairman Murray invited members of the audience to address the Commission. No one came
forward.
Chairman Murray asked staff for their recommendation.
Ms. Flores stated staff’s recommendation was for approval and, if the Commission agreed, the
Resolution numbers is 12-02768.
There being no questions regarding staff’s recommendation, Chairman Murray closed the public
hearing.
The Commissioner were in agreement that the location was ideal for the use requested.
It was moved by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Kiefer and passed by a 4-0-1
vote, with Commissioner Lujan absent, to adopt Resolution No. 12-2768, approving PLN-12-00090
(Conditional Use Permit).
5. PLN-12-00062 (VARIANCE)
Location: 12256 Paramount Boulevard
Owner: McDonald’s Corporation
Applicant: Robert Picard, c/o Stantec Architecture, PC
Staff: Jessica Flores
CEQA: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this request
has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities).
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 16, 2012 – PAGE 10
Page 11
Request: A request to allow the reduction of required parking from 56 parking spaces to
45 parking spaces to allow for a double drive-thru lane at an existing restaurant
(McDonald’s) on property zoned C-2 (General Commercial).
Chairman Murray noted that the applicant had provided a letter requesting the matter be withdrawn.
City Attorney Yvette Abich Garcia provided direction to the Commission, that they “Receive and File”
the applicant’s request. Chairman Murray said it was so moved.
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS : There were no persons wishing to address the Commission at this time.
Neither staff, nor the Commissioners wished to comment at this time.
IX. OTHER BUSINESS: 2011 General Plan Annual Progress Report
Assistant Planner Kevin Nguyen provided a PowerP oint presentation to t he Planning Commission,
highlighting the projects and activities of the Planning Division for 2011. The Commissioners appreciated
the data that Mr. Nguyen provided and commented on counter activity, railroad grade issues, and open
space in the downtown.
It was moved by Commissioner Morales, seconded by Commissioner Kiefer and approved by al l
Commissioners present to approve the 2011 General Plan Annual Progress Report a nd to forward it to the
City Council.
X. ITEMS F OR FUTURE AGENDA: No future agenda items were addressed.
XI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the
Commission adjourned at 8:20 p.m., to June 6, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at Downey City Hall, 11111
Brookshire Avenue, Downey, Ca. 90241
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 2012.
Michael Murray
Michael Murray, Chairman
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Minutes were duly approved at a Regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 6th day of June, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lujan, Morales, Kiefer, Murray
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Garcia
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
Theresa Donahue
Theresa Donahue, Secretary
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
H:\Community Development\Planning Commission\Minutes\2012\May 16, 2012-Minutes.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 16, 2012 – PAGE 11