• Email
  • Print

Staff Review Committee Meeting Minutes December 18, 2003

Staff Review Committee Meeting Minutes December 18, 2003

THURSDAY, 9:00 A.M., DECEMBER 18, 2003

CALL TO ORDER:Chair Rosen called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:Becerra, Mullis, Rosen, Tabatabaee, Thompson, Wallin


December 4, 2003 approved as written.



PRJ03-00838 - ZON03-00074. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: JONES READING AND MATH CLINICS, INC A request for approval of a reading and math tutoring facility (trade school on property located at 211 East Imperial Highway (approximately 757 feet east of Harbor Boulevard and 262 feet north of Imperial Highway) (C-M zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines).

Those present were Cliff Jones and Mark Leong representing Jones Reading and Math Clinics, Inc.

Assistant Planner Sowers presented the project. The owner is requesting approval for a one-on-one reading and math tutoring facility that would be located in tenant spaces within an existing office building. The office/restaurant building complex was built as four parcels in 1978. There is a shared Parking and Access Agreement between the four parcels. The parking provided under the Access Agreement is based on todays standards for the entire four parcels. The facility would operate between 2-9 p.m. with one-hour classes for grades K-12. The building consists of an executive office, reception area, copy/work room and a storage room. The number of students is expected to be between 8-12 with occupancy, including staff, of no more than 30 at any given time. The office takes up two suites (approximately 2,100 square feet) on the ground floor with bathrooms adjacent to the two suites.

The Citys Traffic Engineer has requested a parking analysis. The information for the study should be gathered on two days, Monday and Thursday, at half hour intervals, between the hours of 1-6 p.m. to assure that there is adequate parking on the site for students and facility. Chairman Rosen asked if the Citys Traffic Engineer had a specific area of concern. Assistant Planner Sowers stated that the study would most likely be the area immediately surrounding the building. If parking is not adequate near the school, staff would be concerned with children crossing the parking area. Committee Member Wallin wondered whether the existing parking is sufficient for the entire center. Assistant Planner Sowers stated that based on the square footage of the center as an office use, the parking meets Code requirements. Chairman Rosen stated that under the Minor Site Plan process, the specific use is considered to determine the adequacy of parking based on the operational retirements of the tutoring facility. Variables considered include how many students, time of day, turnover, and impacts on adjacent uses. It meets Code as an office use but may or may support the use as a tutoring facility. The Committee would like to know not only how many spaces are available, but also where people are parking. Assistant Planner Sowers asked if the entire center should be included in the study. Chairman Rosen suggested that she get clarification from the traffic engineer before proceeding with the traffic study.

Chairman Rosen asked the applicant if there would be any tenant improvements. Mr. Leong stated that no improvements beyond paint and wallpaper are anticipated. Committee Member Wallin inquired if a site inspection by the Building Department had been requested. The applicant said he had not requested an inspection. He was under the impression that the use was not considered a school, but a tutoring facility. Chairman Rosen explained that the facility would be considered a school under the Building Code and fall under the E Occupancy Use, and encouraged the applicant to request a pre-inspection. Chairman Rosen said he is concerned with children congregating outside the facility while waiting for a family member to pick them up. Where will the children wait? Mr. Leong said the children would be required to wait in the reception area. Mr. Jones advised that the wording in the property lease would be amended to stipulate that children shall not leave the reception area until an adult arrives.

Further comments from the Committee include the need for a fire alarm, and a change of Occupancy Permit.

MOTION made SECONDED, and CARRIED by all members present, to CONTINUE PRJ03-00838 - ZON03-00074 to the next regular meeting January 15 to allow time for a parking study.

PRJ03-00845 - ZON 03-00075. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL FERRERO. A request for a reduction in the front yard setback from 35 feet to 28 feet on property located at 2261 Yuma Way (southwest corner of Yuma Way and Laguna Road) (R-1-20 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15305 of CEQA Guidelines).

Michael Ferrero, the applicant and property owner was present.

Senior Planner Mullis presented the project. This lot is the second lot of a parcel that was approved some years ago for single-family homes. The configuration of the parcels is very wide but not very deep. In an effort to meet the setback requirements, and to accommodate a single story home on this particular lot meant reducing the rear yard setback. The applicant is now proposing to encroach into the front and move the house closer to the street thus creating more useable rear yard space. There were no calls or letters from neighbors opposing the proposal.

Mr. Ferrero stated that he would like to move his house forward 7 feet. The amount of usable rear yard space is severely reduced because of the lots configuration, its architectural style, and a block wall built 12-feet back from the property line. The problem wasnt apparent until the property was surveyed, and then it became evident that the house would be too close to the block wall. Committee Member Wallin stated that this is a difficult piece of property and he does not feel that the proposal would affect any of the adjacent properties. Staff recommends approval based on the following conditions:

  1. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the plans, descriptions, and statements provided by the applicant, except to the extent that the Redevelopment Design Review Committee, Planning/Landmark Commission or the City Council modifies the plans or designs.
  2. Final building plans shall comply with Building Code setback requirements prior to issuance of permits. That all corrections generated through the plan check and inspection processes are incorporated by reference as conditions of approval and would include any requirements generated by the Engineering, Building and Fire.

MOTION made SECONDED, and CARRIED by all members present, to APPROVE PRJ03-00845 - ZON03-00075, (Resolution No. 348) subject to the following conditions.

There is a 10-day appeal period where any action by this Committee can be appealed to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council. The request may be approved subject to conditions. Minutes of the hearing and a Resolution will be prepared.