HomeMy WebLinkAboutDECEMBER 20,1983
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
25:0855
I
ROLL CALL
TRAFFIC
(Holy Angels
Church)
~)~
CLOSED
SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
I
ATTEST:
M I NUT E S
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
and the
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 20, 1983
The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in an
adjourned regular session at 7 p.m. December 20, 1983 in the Arcadia
City Hall Conference Room.
PRESENT: Councilmen Dring, Haltom, Hannah, Pellegrino, Lojeski
ABSENT: None
Council was advised of forthcoming meetings by the City Manager. Also
the dinner in honor of the visiting Newcastle, Australia band members
and visitors which will be held December 28 at the Arboretum. Everyone
who can was urged to attend.
With reference to the traffic problem at the Holy Angels Church on
Sundays at its 10:30 a.m. and 12:30 ,p.m. services, the Chief of Police
suggested methods of providing assistance for the members to cross
Holly Avenue on Fairview Avenue. It was MOVED by Mayor Lojeski, seconded
by Councilman Pellegrino and carried on roll call vote as follows that
solution No.1 of the report be put into effect, with the cooperation of
Father Walsh and the church members.
No.1. Prepare a map for church members showing how to enter
and leave the church lot by use of streets other than Holly
Avenue and Fairview Avenue west.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Dring, Haltom, Hannah, Pellegrino, Lojeski
None
None
The City Council then entered a closed session to discuss litigation
matters with the City Attorney.
Council reconvened at 7:30 p.m. and adjourned sine die.
,
Mayor
... ~
fi/{f,:t&eZ #h(/
-1-
12-20-83
. .~~ -\ '.
I
T RAN S C RIP T
(INSOFAR AS DECIPHERABLE)
RELATING TO
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE APPEAL TO
PLANNING COMMISSION RES. NO. 1245 DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW A CHURCH USE FOR PROPERTY AT 141 WEST LAS TUNAS DRIVE.
(To identify those speaking: LOJESKI
WOOLARD
DR. GOTTUSO
BARBOSA
MILLER
SERENO
TSE
QUAKKELSTEIN
HALTOM
HANNAH
PELLEGRINO
WATTS
t-1AYOR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICANT
ATTORNEY FOR DR. GOTTUSO
CITY ATTORNEY
MEMBER OF CONGREGATION
DR, MARIO, RESIDENT
MR. PAUL, RESIDENT
COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN
CITY MANAGER
PROCEEDINGS AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1983
LOJESKI
WOOLARD
LOJESKI
GOTTUSO
LOJESKI
GOTTUSO
Item No.2 Public Hearing. Mr. Bill Woolard.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council this is Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1245 regarding the property at 141 W. Las Tunas Drive. The
Planning Commission at its September the 13th meeting adopted Resolution No.
1245 denying a Conditional Use Permit for a church at this address. The
applicant Dr. John Gottuso has appealed the Planning Commission's denial.
The Planning Commission in its consideration expressed concern that there
was not adequate onsite parking space and that the proposed offsite parking
was too far from the proposed church.
It was also felt that the proposed UI
Commission noted that the Conditiona
church which might subsequently pur-
was too intensive for the site and the
Use Permit could be transferred to any
chase the property. You have in your packet the applicant's letter of appeal
and the staff report which was presented to the Planning Commission, this
concludes my report unless you have any questions.
Any questions of Mr. Woolard? This is a public hearing. Anyone desirous
to speak in favor of this item on the agenda please come forward.
Dr. John Gottuso who made the appeal. Do you want my address again?
Please.
370 W. Las Flores, Arcadia. I would like to address again our proposal for
the scope of what we would be doing there. Our major desire is to be able
to hold a couple of Sunday services - one for worship in the morning and a
Bible study at night. And a couple of week nights. At the prsent time we
have one week night Bible study on a Thursday night. Within the scope of
our desire to do ,this we had purchased this facil ity not as a pre-school
per se, we had a double escrow - one to purchase the facility itself and the
.
other also to purchase the pre-school. We invested our total savings to
purchase this, a quarter of a million dollars, and we put $70,000 down to be
able to do this as a church ministry. We use to be in Glendale and then we
moved here awhile back and we have been meeting in various members homes
-1-
. ,
I
then it localized at my particular place because we had a large family room.
And now it just seemed appropriate for us to be able to have a building that
we could use. We purchased it also with the intent because it was zoned c-o
and we thought there would be no problem about the usage as a church rather
than as strictly in a residential community - so that is the basic background
in our scope of usage. The use that would be there, we had also stated, would
be approximately 50 members. In dealing with both the Fire Department and
the Planning Department that seemed the best breakoff point for us to utilize.
Also if we got into higher numbers we're talking about all kinds of conditions
to change the building. Thats one thing about the physical plant. One of the
other issues is - the total scope of ministry and thrust - is towards personal
growth and not programmed growth. That maybe difficult to comprehend in a
world that believes that bigger is better, but as Burroughs says "its not
necessarily so even though its IBM"-~its- you can be smaller and still be doin~
a very dynamic work and thats what we're into. We're into people growing
and developing as spiritually mature persons and we're not into a high active
program oriented church that is similiar to the business world that is in-
terested in growth and profit. Our profit is in growing functionally and
we have had a history of at' least 25 years in Glendale and now as we're
here in Arcadia, of smaller congregations. We have probably never exceeded
50, not because either myself or the .people do not know how to grow and have
progams, but its been our thrust to grow in depth rather than in numbers.
What we believe is train a unit of people and let them go out and reach
others. If we have 50 people we could reach 5,000 people with a particular
message as we deal with the people interacting in life, but not bring them
back to our particular facility. But reach them and then let them live
where they are and stay where they are and join a particular place where
they are rather than bringing them into our place. Thats been our philosophy
-2-
.,'
and it will continue to be our philosophy. So from the standpoint of the
use we do have that condition of 50 people. The physical facts of the
plant itself will just prohibit what was presented in that we might sell
the facility and then someone would, come in with 500 people. The place it-
self just couldn't hold that. We're not even into that, but, it just doesn't
even consider the fact that the plant itself couldn't do that. Then the
issue of church type activities - that the building is ,not designed for
church type of activities. We redesigned our congregational facility in
Glendale with a similiar orientation and church type activities - I don't
understand that particular objection - I'd like to assuage whatever fear
I
that may be - or concern. What we're going to be doing is studying the Bible,
praying and preaching. Thats our basic structure, we do not have a large
heavy social program - trying to get a lot of children in or having people
have bakeouts and all kinds of things. We are into spiritual growth and
development. Not a social program but a spiritual program. And so I don't
know what this church type activity is. From the early church on through
history its always been congregations and they would meet at houses and then
get a collective building for the people but - so I didn't understand that.
We aren't into the modern type hype-program - 10,000 people... 5,000 people...
500... we're into relational, personal growth and not program. So it isn't
that we're not into succeeding - we're succeeding in another way, an in-depth
kind of way. The issue of parking which seems to be the thorniest issue
and my understanding in the analysis of the staff report - there are no'
actual requirements for church's to have a particular on-site number and
though we understand that we do need some parking. Right now our structure
has 6 striped parkina places and I understand that the unwritten formula
that is used is 4 - 1. With that we'd approximately need 12 places. Now
there are 4 lanes in the front parking area, 2 drive-through driving lanes
-3-
I
LOJESKI
GOTTUSO
LOJESKI
BARBOSA
and then 2 for - striped parking - and then another whole lane that is used
for entering and exit from the building. Now on Sunday or these week nights
that we would have it, the people would be there approximately 3 hours, the
cars would be stationary, they'd be there. We could add right now, without
changing a thing on-site, we could have 9 places. That means we're looking
,for 3 places to hold the conditional ~imitation of 50 people which would be
approximately 12 spaces. So we have enough just with using one of the lanes
in front of the facility and not even the double lane for drive-through - 9
places. So we're looking for 3 parking places and not even considering com-
pact cars which is less and which is probably 50% of our people's cars are
compact, thought I know that's not your consideration. So we could do that.
I also have for your - opportunity to look at - a proposal from John Bartletts
Associates where we could also include the back area. And with a little re-
designing, add 5 more parking places. So we'd have sufficient on-site park-
ing to meet the limited conditions of 50 people - which we're asking for.
And though even what we have with the amount in front, we have at least
enough for g, that would maybe mean a couple of people park on the street.
I would open that to you - what you would accept for a limit of 50 people -
how many parking places would be necessary, that could carry this particular
load.
Excuse me. Dr. Gottuso are you advocating a change in whats in front of us
this evening as far as the parking and that sort of thing?
Well I was trying to assuage the issue of safety in crossing the street.
Well if your desirous in making any changes this must go back to the Planning
Department - Planning Commission. We're not here to decide changes in the
parking structure - the design of the property or the landscaping or anything
of that nature. If you're desirous of doing that then I suggest we go back
to step 1 rather then to continue on.
We 11 Mr. Mayor.....
-4-
LOJESKI
BARBOSA
LOJESKI
PELLEGRINO
LOJESKI
PELLEGRINO
BARBOSA
PELLEGRINO
BARBOSA
Excuse me.. ... who are you and the name and address please?
Yes, Mr. Mayor my name is Henry S. Barbosa. I'm an attorney-my address is
617 South Olive Street, Los Angeles. If you'll permit me to, I think, respond
to your question about whether or not we're modifying the application I would
respectfully submit to the City Council that because this is a ge novo
hearing before the City Council, its ~my understanding that so long as we're
within the parameters of the Notice and do not change the proposal that we're
making to you, that we can bring this to the City Council. I think what
Dr. Gottuso is trying to elaborate to the City Council is to address the
concern raised by the staff based upon the physical site as it is presentl
laid out. As it is presently striped it shows six spaces, and
at the staff report, that I believe you all have, if you'll look at the page
behind the aerial photo its got a plot plan of the site. And what is being
suggested by Dr. Gottuso, if I can highlight the point, is this.. do you
have that before you - the plot plan?
Page 18, I think.
Mr. Mayor.
Yessir.
Mr. Gottuso or Mr. Barbosa - on the plan that you show us I see 4 only.
Well it shows' the 4 but if you notice in the driveway area it shows two
parking spaces that circle.
Oh I see - I better put my glasses on, excuse me.
The point that I would like to make, that Dr. Gottuso is trying to also make,
is that looking at the configuration we do show 6. What we are trying to
do is to address the concern the Commission had, and of course, keep in mind
that we're trying to draw numbers out of the air. Your code does not speci-
fically set a ratio or a formula for church or assembly type uses. I went
to parochial school and I've always had the impression that a church has t
have a steeple and has to have a bell. And Dr. Gottuso and I have had
-5-
I
several hours of long discussion and discourse about what a church really
is - and he's got me convinced, at 1east, about the form and substance of
his ministry and I was kind of surprised cause he's not pro-growth. He
doesn't want to get bigger and bigger. And he has satisfied me that his
congregation, his ministry, doesn't work with more than the number of people,
he presently has. At the present time he serves approximately 35 people.
The number of not exceeding 50 is something that was drawn out of the air
by the Fire Department. As I recall, as I understand it, the Fire Department
in reviewing the site said that the building is suitable for up to 180 people.
Of course, they would prefer that there not be more than 50 using that site.
Now thats not to disregard the parking problems, but the physical building
itself could hold 180 people sitting in chairs properly spaced, having Bible
readings or listening to preaching and meditation or whatever else they do.
But keeping in mind that there is no fixed formula for parking, for church
type uses, you have to keep in mind that his ministry does not involve more
than 35 people at the present time. And if you were to apply a factor of four
occupants to an automobile, than you're talking about 8 or 9 automobiles -
and thats all that he has. So that as I look ,at the problem the scope of the
matter before you for a decision is whether or not we can find two more addi-
tiona1 spaces. And thats going to depend upon this City Counci1 making a
determination in this case - that X number of parking spaces is suitable for
his congregation - and he is not to exceed that number. If you'll permit me
to go further, if you'll look in the area just above the two parking spaces -
it says the front parking and the entrance to the building - I was there this
afternoon and you can - and I've been through thousands of these kinds of
hearings trying to make parking fit. As this plot plan is presently laid
out you could add three additional automobiles. And I'll tell you where -
one right in front of the entrance, one on the curve where it says landscaping
thats going to the west cause this plot plan faces north and south, and one
-6-
HANNAH
BARBOSA
HANNAH
BARBOSA
HANNAH
BARBOSA
behind the car in the middle, so what I've done - and its hard for you to
see this, but across the entrance there will be room for three automobiles.
At this point you have nine. Now looking at that front parking area, it is
really a double striped driveway - all these.......
Pardon me - do you have a map that we could look at? I'm loosing you.
No - this - its the plot plan that is part of your staff report.
I have that.
Alright - can I step forward?
You're talking about putting parking in the landscaping area and putting
parking in the.........
31
No, no - if you'll permit me to give this to the City Clerk she can show you
what I've drawn with my own pencil mark - give you an idea of what I'm talking
about. The point that I am trying to make is this - that there is no fixed -
no set number that you have to have to allow assembly type uses and conceding
that this is an assembly use, and recognizing the limitations that are im-
posed by the nature of this type of ministry - he doesn't need 12. or 13 parking
spaces. So really the problem is reduced to nothing more than finding a
suitable number of parking spaces that he can provide for his ministry. And
with the suggestion that I've pointed to you, we believe that we can meet the
parking requirements on the site. Now, let me add just two final words so
that the City Council will, hopefully will be confortable with our proposal.
Number 1 - Dr. Gottuso is prepared to accept a condition that is you allow
a Conditional Use Permit for this use, he will sign an additional condition
that he will not sell or transfer the property with that CUP use. That is,
if you grant him the use it is limited to him. Of course, I know covenants
run with the land, but I also know that conditions such as this limiting the
transfer of the property for this use is an enforceable condition. So that
if he were to sell the property he would sell it only as a pre-grade child
care center, which it presently is at the present time. So that you don't
-7-
have the abstract academic problem that he will sell to someone else for a
church and that will bring 500 people in - your not going..... you'll never
have 500 people in that site - it just is an impossibility - so we are pre-
pared to accept the recommendation that the number of people in that structure
for services will never exceed 50 - and if you believe that it is adequate
to say "Dr. Gottuso please show 8 parking spaces", we can do that at the
present. And if you add the covenant that he is not to assign the property
as a church use, that upon transfer of the property the CUP shall expire -
that is an enforceable condition - and we're prepared to accept it and live
by that condition - so that you won't have the problem of his proliferating
some kind of a use. I have one more comment to make, if I can recall - if
I get my notes back. Thank you. So if you're to accept those conditions
on our part - I do believe the size is suitable -that we can arrange to pro-
vide the parking. If you determine 8 is a sufficient number we're prepared
to do that. If you believe that there should be - I'm sorry g -,it shows 6
its 9. If you determine in this case that the site can handle the
9, as I have shown you here, and if you fix that number that you must provide
the 9 -' you cannot exceed 50 occupants for the Sunday services - then we can
go forward and will accept those limitations. If you feel, in your discretion,
that 9 is not suitable for whatever reasons and I can't think of any since we
are drawing numbers out of the air - that has to be recognized. We have a
proposed plan here and as we are .... it brings it back to the question you
raised initially about are we modifying our proposal - No - our proposal is
the same. Its for a CUP for a church use. And we didn't come to the Planning
Commission with any fixed notion of the number of parking spaces nor do we
have a fixed notion here tonight as to now many parking spaces would be suit-
able for this particular site, but, if you decide that 9 parking spaces are
not adequate for his congregation, we do have a plan here that we would
-8-
I
PELLEGRINO
GOTTUSO
BARBOSA
PELLEGRINO
GOTTUSO
PELLEGRINO
GOTTUSO
PELLEGRINO
GOTTUSO
PELLEGRINO
BARBOSA
LOJ ESKI
HANNAH
submit to staff and upon their approval this plan will provide 12 parking
spaces on that site. I don't believe we need to get to that if you deter-
mine based the testimony thus far that 9 is a suitable number - given his
expressed condition not to exceed 50 and keeping in mind he only has 35 mem-
bers of his parish right now - we believe that the site is suitable for the
use - it has more than adequate access and it is a commercial use in a
commercial zone. If I can answer any questions or try and restate or clarify
anything I've said I'll be more than pleased to try.
Mr. Mayor. Question to Dr. Gottuso. How long have you been there?
Since June 1.
June 1.
How big were your parishioners when you started Dr. Gottuso?
I'm sorry......
How many parishioners did you have as of June ~?
The same.
The same amount?
The same amount - yes.
It has not grown?
Mr. Pellegrino if I may add a comment., I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt
you - but Dr. Gottuso is a rather modest man. When we first met it took me
awhile to learn that he is a State licensed family counselor, and then it
began to sink into my mind that he has a very intensive program with the
few number of people - and I was skeptical at first but I'm convinced now
that he is very committed to his program of ministry, which is personal
growth - not growjng in numbers - so that there's no plans for expansion.
Any other questions?
Mr. Mayor I wonder about the legality of putting a covenant against the
property that can't be occupied by more than 50 people - number one. And
number two - if we do that then we should probably require 12 parking spaces
-9-
I
BARBOSA
PELLEGRINO
MILLER
BARBOSA
MILLER
I PELLEGRINO
HANNAH
BARBOSA
HANNAH
BARBOSA
HANNAH
BARBOSA
HANNAH
BARBOSA
if we have that right, which I'd like to ask our city attorney - which doesn't
seem right to me - but anyway if he provides only 9 and we have 4 - 1, I think
that we should limit the number of people to 36.
I think somebody is breathi~~ into his microphone.
Mr. Miller I think your microphone is distracting the speaker.
I beg your pardon.
Those are expensive.
very very sensitive microphones.
It doesn't
I'm sorry.
Would you repeat that Mr. Hannah
I'm sorry......
Well I - basically I said if we're talking about 50 people, we should have
12 parking spaces - period - on a 4 to 1 basis.
If you accept that as a premise then thats - you know - thats debatable,
but I won't quarrel with you.
Secondly - if you have 36 present members of your church, and you're providing
9 - should we not make a covenant against any increase in the membership?
Well - if all the drift - I'll let him respond because its his parish.
You haven't grown - you've told me that.
If you're saying 40.... .. .
But you also that the Fire Chief says you can lBO people there - so then
should we legislate to the maximum amount of parking spaces and say we need
40.
Mr. Hannah you raise a good point because I had some difficulty in my own
mind trying to make this presentation - but if you're prepared to determine
or adjudicate in this particular case - that 4 to 1 is a reasonable number
and if we represent to you that we have 36 members - therefore we must have
9 - and if you were to impose a further condition that if -, for every incre-
ment of 4 that we intend to have there - that we must provide additonal
parking - thats a great solution because our proposal to our design to give
-10-
you 12 - if you determine that to be the appropriate size - does involve a
cost - and since he does not have a growth oriented ministry - I don't know
Dr. Gottuso - if it grows are you prepared to go to more? If it stays at
GOTTUSO
g will you take the g?
I want to state a couple of things to clarify something - one - the 180
figure is that there are two large rooms, which means that in one you could
HANNAH
have 100. - using the factor of 7.1 - I think, and then in the other you could
have 80.
I just used that figure because your counselor said 180 is permissible. I
No thats it - it is true - it is accurate from the Fire Departments interpr
GOTTUSO
tation of usage. We wouldn't be using both rooms at the same time period
anyway - we going to be in one room - and we're - which we will be utilizing
that
at one time. So it would never be/if you had 180 you would need 40 places
because we wouldn't hi! - we're not using both rooms and we'd either have
worship service in one room and then we'd have a Bible study. So that was
just proposed because there are the two 1 arge rooms. The Fi're Department
says "you could have that". If we did that we'd have to go into total redesign
and restructuring the whole facility. We plan to be there only in the transi-
tion time anyway - we weren't thinking of a forever period there and if things
go as they have for a quarter of a century we're still looking at the same
kind of operation. So it wasn't to have 180 people there.
HANNAH
Yes - I asked another question - you may not have recognized my face but
I sat in on the Planning Commission hearing. My question - and I recognize
people in the audience that were here also that night - I don't think the
counselor who's here-but why was not the 12 parking spaces proposed at that
particular Planning Commission hearing?
BARBOSA
Because they didn't have a lawyer trying to figure out ways to make it fit.
I came into the picture approximately 10 days ago - after the Planning Com-
mission hearing. Its fortunate that I did come at this stage - typically
-11-
I
MILLER
BARBOSA
clients come to you after the City Council and then its too late. Right now
is our trial and I think Dr. Gottuso was rather circumspect, rather cautious
in calling me when he did - had he gone - I think he made a very good pre-
sentation although I wasn't there - from what I've seen in the staff reports
and the analysis and the presentation I thought he did a good job at the
Planning Commission although they were sensitive to some concerns and I think
it took the - my professional assistance - I'll take credit for that - to
help him understand the sensitivities of the Planning Department and the pro-
fessionals, and to bring the experience that I have - being what it is - to
address those concerns then - he's got his eyes on the stars - and I'm looking
at the ground and so I think thats the cause for not having a better presen-
tation before the Planning Commission, but we would have done so had I been
retained earlier - but that wasn't the case.
Let me add that I'm sure Mr. Barbosa would concur that you could look at the
facts of this particular presentation tonight and - you know - have it con-
sidered as a part of this appeal or within the discretion of the Council -
maybe you won't agree - send it back to the Planning Commission, but I think
there's enough new matter here, in particular these statements on covenants
which I certainly would want to be sure of - I've seen covenants to this
effect - but whether they're legally enforceable in this situation - we surely
want to ascertain that it would be within the purview of the Council if thats
your desire to refer this back to the Planning Commission.
Well we'd prefer not to go back to the Planning Commission because he's got
people worshiping out of his home. Let me make just two points because this
is a de novo hearing under your ordinance and the state law - the fact that
we're - so long as we're within the parameters of the notice the fact that
we put the parking here or there I don't think modifies the application nor
does it v~olate due process. In terms of these conditions being acceptable
and enforceable I'd just like to point out the two cases that come to my
-12-
mind - and those are Mc Dougall versus Imperial County,-'a California
!
Supreme Court decision. And the case of J - Marion \versus the City of
Sacramento. Both cases hold very specifically - in the Conditional Use
context where you accept the benefits of ftn entitlement then you are bound
by the burdens of the conditions that you accept. We're here to represent
to you that we would accept these conditions very specifically and if we
accept your permit then we're bound by these conditions. In the case of
I
J - Marion ~ersus Sacra~ento it was a case where a prior owner in return
for his right to come in to be annexed to the city - made a covenant neverl
to sell liquor in that grocery store. And on that condition to refrain fr
an,otherwise unlawful activity he was zoned into the city. He thereafter so
the property and the new buyer said 'you can't make me - you can't prevent
me fron selling liquor - I have a right under State law, under the code".
The court said "no you don't, your predecessor - and you accepted the condi-
tions - your predecessor self imposed that condition 'and now you've bought
it that way - you have to 1 ive with it".
So I think that under J - Marion
I
versus Sacramento and Mc Dougall versus Imperial County, which is a Supreme
Court decision, both these conditions-if we accept them - being otherwise
reasonable and not oppressive - that we're agreeing not to try and - not to
sell the property for the church use - which is - I think -' on point with
J - Marion versus Sacramento and under Mc Dougall the Supreme Court case -
if we accept the benefits that you confer to us - we're accepting the burdens
that run with it and that is not to exceed 50 and to meet the 4 to 1 ratio,
MILLER
and to provide the parking as and if the congregation does grow. So that... ...
As I understand that - and that wouldn't be a reason for sending it back to
the Planning Commission because if they impose those conditions it would all
be subject to the assurance that they could be enforced.....
-13-
thot ,
BARBOSA
Of course.....
MILLER
That that would be provided, however, it is still within their purview
BARBOSA
IOJESKI
ARBOSA
HANNAH
BARBOSA
HANNAH
BARBOSA
LOJESKI
LOJESKI
C!TY CLERK
SERENO
I
if they see fit to send it back to the Planning Commission even though its a
de novo hearing it can be argued its a de novo hearing on the issue presented
at the Planning Commission. I agree its debatable but I don't want the Council
to feel that their discretionl is limited.
I agree that there is no legal impediment to your referring the matter - we
just don't believe its that big a thing to take back to the Planning Commission.
At the same time I respect the deference that you properly give to your Plan-
ning Commission - given their familiarity with these kinds of issues - but we
would be more than pleased to have you make a decision tonight, if you would.
Any further questions gentlemen? Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Mayor. We also have other people from the parish to testify if
you have any questions about the kind of ministry and the fact that it is lim-
ited - and if you'll accept that as a fact - that its a limited ministry and
not a growth ministry then we're prepared to submit - we only - we have one
individual here - John whats your last name. Mario - I'm sorry. Tse? T-S-E?
I don't think we're asking - doubting the integrity of
But he's a neighbor who knows the ministry there - and he has no Objection to
the project.
Yes - we're not doubting the integrity of the church.
Thank you very much.
Thank you gentlemen. Anyone else desiring to speak in favor of item?
(A lady is speaking very faintly from the audience - re: typist)
Maam please come to the microphone - name and address please?
(Still speaking very faintly) The same person that spoke at the Planning Com.
Your address please.
334 El Dorado in Arcadia. Sereno is s-e-r-e-n-o. I don't know how to pronounce
your name - is it Hannan - Hannah? Sometimes when questions are thrown back
I often wonder after we give our response and our answer what was behind the
-14-
HANNAH
SERENO
LOJESKI
HALTOM
SERENO
HALTOM
SERENO
question and I feel like I'd like some give and take on that. You obviously
had a reason for saying "how come we didn't have the 12 parking spaces when
we had the Planning Commission meeting". So in my mind I'm saying well why
was that a concern of yours? Was there something inside of that that made you
question our integrity? Cause thats what I heard and I think thats left open
and I'd like to close that - if not I'd really like to hear what the reason
was for your question.
I don't have any question. The reason for that question was that the
Planning
and I I
didn't
Commission primarily - we're concerned with the parking requirements
think that they were influenced in their opinion by the fact that you
have sufficient parking.
Ok - I appreciate that. Then I would say that what we have offered you then
is to in fact - give you facts that they were off in their view of what was
there - is that possible that they could have misinterpreted the plan itself?
Councilman Haltom.
Miss Sereno - here is the problem. Sometimes the Planning Commission sees one
plan and sometimes we see a changed plan. Therefore its not fair to the Plan-
ning Commission that we make a ruling unless we have both ruled on the same
plan.
So the question could have been - is this the same plan?
Thats - to me thats the underlying question. Thats a problem we have and
people do that - whether intentionally or as it happened - unintentionally
here - where other thoughts come to them - they seek other advice - you know -
and things like that.
Ok. And I also have another question - I have a question that hasn't been
brought up and that is - is this really the primary concern - parking and
intensity or are there some unwritten rules or codes or any other principles
I
that guide you in to determining whether or not in fact a building that is
-15-
"
PELLEGRINO
LOJESKI
PELLEGRINO
SERENO
'ELLEGRIND
SERENO
PELLEGRINO
SERENO
PELLEGRINO
SERENO
PELLEGRINO
SERENO
PELLEGRINO
SERENO
PELLEGRINO
SERENO
,PELLEGRINO
LOJESKI
already conceived for one purpose can be changed for another? Thats a deep
concern of mine - I wonder if there is something else inside of each indivi-
dual on the Council that says "well we're looking for things to stop this
from going ahead". Thats a preconceived idea of mine - I'd like that to be
put to rest - for my benefit.
Mr. Mayor?
Yes.
Miss Sereno?
Yes.
You have quite a few considerations in your mind that your deviously thinking
that we're thinking..
Devious1y..we11 I'm opening mine up to you so that you can know what I'm
saying - but your right - I'm asking.
Let me - 1et me te11 you where we sit...
Thank you.
We see an app1ication'come in front of the P1anning Commission that their
first a1ternative was to cross a four 1ane street to get to the church. I
think thats a 1itt1e bit dangerous..... you know.....
Ok... .
Thats one of my inner fee1ings... a1right?
Can we take that issue just by itself?
Well its of no concern - no because its been revised by the new......
But you brought it up - so I'd just like to deal with that.. if that in fact
were the case there is a crosswalk there - so no one should be crossing that
street.
Quite a ways away from the front of the ------ from the area.
Not quite a way s. . . . . . .
Ok... .
This is getting into a contest - I don't think we need to get into Mrs. Sereno.
The Council basically is - having in front of us this evening something differ-
-16-
SERENO
LOJSKI
SERENO
LOJESKI
SERENO
LOJESKI
TSE
ently - much differently as Councilman Pellegrino states then what is in
front of us here and also what the Planning Commission had concerns about.
Also we are here to represent the best interests of the city in all phases of
this and you're going to not find - I don't think five more open minded indivi-
duals when they look at this. We have ruled for and against - many times -
our own Planning Commission
Thats what I wanted to know
And for and against a number of individuals in the community - so - any of the
underlying theories you may have-please put them to rest - as far as our
I
concerns in that direction.
I appreciate that and I want you to know I'm a novice and thats one of the
reasons I'm asking the questions.
Fine - no problem thats......
Thank you.....
You're very welcome. Anyone else desirous of speaking in favor of this item
on the agenda?
My name is Mario Tse of 154 W. Las Tunas. I have known Dr. Gottuso for some
time - not a very long time but long enough. As a matter of fact I'm a dentist
and some of the people in the congregation are my patients - and I know those
few very well - I know what kind of religion they're into - like they keep
reassuring you that they're not into growth - Ok - they're more concerned
with their own personal growth - they don't want to expand. They did invite
me to'join their congregation but - but theres certain kind of - how would I
say it - but they did - they are very firm on the fact that they are very
limited. They are not open to everybody. As a matter of fact they want to be
as closed as possible and its just like Dr. Gottuso said - they're not into
growth at all.
And it seems to me that the Council
is very concerned with the
I
fact that their
overwhelmed with the permits they have and I really don't
believe that would happen because - as I mentioned before - I know some of
-17-
,.
these people pretty well. And I have full confidence that they would not
abuse what they already have - Ok - I think I shouldn't go any further than
this before I say anything wrong.
LOJESKI Thank you doctor. Anyone else desirous of speaking in favor of this item
on the agenda? Anyone in opposition to this public hearing item on the
agenda?
QUAKKELSTEIN My name is Quakkelstein and I live on 159 W. Sandra in Arcadia, been living
there for the past 18 years. And I'd like to vote my vote against it because
I I don't think it is a very good site for a church to' start with. And I would
not have liked to have seen even the Christian church in there or pre-school
bec~use we're getting a lot of small children on our street and parking in
our street from it-and I'm sure we will get more parking from this church
that they want to open up. Because there is a house in the back of that
peoperty and I believe that is in the same - I think those two properties are
connected. And I feel that people would be parking on our street and taking
parking away from our own guests - if we have them. And the noise ratio - I'm
sure we will have more noise fr,om it. I just think it is just not a very
good site for a church - and.thats my opinion.
LOJESKI Thank you very much.
QUAKKELSTEIN Ok - thank you.
LOJESKI Anyone else desirous to speaking in opposition? Would you like to address
that comment doctor?
GOTTUSO Prior to our purchase of the facility the people who owned it also owned the
peoperty directly behind it. They sold that separate to a residential family
unit and it is no longer combined in any way, shape and/or form. The facility
on Las Tunas is totally self-contained within itself and we have no access to
that back lot that butts up to the property. There will be absolutely no
I parking on that street - as we've already said - there really is sufficient
space there. The only problem we really had on the parking was that is wasn't...
-18-
.. if you have this turnaround variable - we could tandem park if you would allow
that - we could valet park there - there is plenty of parking space for our
usage. Its just that it doesn't meet the configuration of this turn-around
factor. We have a lot of land wasted just like back on the other issue that
we can't utilize for parking that really could be adequate to hold it for the
Sunday service or the Wednesday service - where your not having in and out
moving of traffic - your just going to go in park the cars in the front lot
which is plenty to hold - even to 12 you're talking about without doing any-
thing. You know - thats the part that is - I haven't been able to communica1
in some way. I would like to say unequivocally that I am not in question of
the integrity of the Council - I do believe exactly what you said - that your
concerns are the total good - I have no qualms about the fact that you are
piercing whatever there is to see that you do whatever is best. The hidden
issues of whether there is nonbelief about our growth factor - I can only tell
you we're already saying 50 and that - you know what can we do - we're putting
a condition it. The parking is adequate there - we went to offsite because
they said there wasn't this turn-around factor - we'd like to contain it on
the lot - if you would allow that and say that - within the parameters of the
design of how you park theres enough right there. I did not want to have the
thing denied because of some extraneous variable that we had no control - there's
plenty of space there if we'd even tandem park and without - and still have a
two lane driveway - not blocking any of the parked cars. But it doesn't have
turn-around variable - so it denies all that usage of three lanes of paved
property - but we can't use it because you can't turn around - its not striped -
but if we just park them there for the 2 or 3 hours of the meeting and then
left - there wouldn't be any problem but it doesn't meet that exact configura-
tion that was the issue. We also even have the back paved but we can't use
-19-
I
that because of the turn around factor. If we stick with that strict limit
I
LOJESKI
PELLEGRINO
HALTOM
LOJESKI
HALTOM
I
of the variable of turn around we could park there with other designs of
parking - which we would be willing to do - like have an usher park all the
cars. Or park them over at my house where I have one of those big lots you're
talking about that I can't utilize and then we'll bus them over there and just
use two of the parking places with a van. I mean there's other alternatives -
I don't have any problem we'll have 10 cars parked on my lot which is half
paved and park them over there and we'll have someone drive them over there.
Well then we'll just use 2 parking places with 10 people in a van or two times
go get them and not have this parking problem - if that is the difficulty -
thats what I'm addressing - there are other alternatives of using whats there
if you would open that up to conceive of it that way. Thats what I'm asking.
Thank you very much. Anyone else desirous of speaking in opposition of this
item? Gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor I MOVE that we close the public hearing.
Second.
MOVED and seconded. Anyone desirous of leaving it open - Ok - its closed.
Yes - Councilman Haltom.
OK - and the solution - if - and I say only if because I don't know how the
rest feel. If we feel that we want to grant this to expedite it would we
consider sending an approved plan - I don't know - well what I want to say is
as a means of protocol to the Planning Commission to show them why we ruled
on ;,t - if we do rule on it - just to expedite it - because its not a major
structure change or something like that - it is a change. Of course all this
is contingent upon whether or not we decide to approve it - but I offer that
as an alternative to sending somebody back to the Planning Commission and
then possibly back to the Council and - to the exercise that I offer it only
because its not a 'structure change or a consent change of that nature - but
I do think that we should justify it to the Planning Commission and show them
why we ruled - if we do rule to grant it. Ok?
-20-
PELLEGRINO
LOJESKI
PELLEGRINO
HALTOM
LOJESKI
PELLEGRINO
WOOLARD
MILLER
Mr. Mayor.
Councilman Pellegrino.
Some of the recommendations that Dr. Gottuso brought up in - the Planning
Department has brought up - I don't know - I think time is of an essence
in any matter but I see them coming up with the solution of the problem
that is so indicated by the Planning Commission which they will put adequate
parking on the premises that they need - alright. If they do that then I
would be in favor of recommending this with the following recommendations put
forth by the Planning Commission that the maximum occupancy of anyone tim'
shall not exceed 50 persons. Number two - that the required exits shall be
)
installed and all fire safety requirements shall be complied with to the
satisfaction of the Fire Department. Number three - that a covenant in a
form and content approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded, noting
that such owner, or owners, of the property at 120 - 126 Las Tunas Drive,
and 150 Las Tunas Drive will continue to maintain their parking area for
said use of the church as long as the church is maintained. Number four -
that the church shall not operate until all conditions of approval have
been complied with. Number five - that the CUP 83-16'sha11 not take effect
until the owner and applicant have executed a form available for the Planning
Department - or for the - yes, I guess the Building Department... Planning
Department... Building Department accepts what they have put on the premises.
I'll second that.
Any discussion?
Is that - did I make that clear - or did I confuse it?
I might need some clarification here.
I would like some too, because there was a couple of covenants that were
represented by Mr. Barbosa which I believe the Council might be interested
I
in if you're going to seek approval action.
-21-
PELLEGRINO
WOOLARD
lIIJ PELLEGRINe
HANNAH
LOJESKI
HANNAH
LOJESKI
PELLEGRINO
WOOLARD
LOJESKI
WOOLARD
I
HANNAH
LOJESKI
HANNAH
BARBOSA
Ok - excuse me - excuse me Mr. City Attorney I meant to include what only -
that they have accepted to give us. Mr. Barbosa's recommendation of putting
a covenant on the property for the said use of this and this business alone
and if it was to sell that it would go off.
I think the problem I'm having here is that a couple of the - one of the
conditions that you just read - which was Number 3 of the original staff
report - regarding the covenants - those were covenants that would tie-in
properties across the street for use as parking. And I think that is not
what they're really pr.oposing at this time.
Ok - I'm sorry - I'm sorry - I do not want to use any other parking, or any
other parking across the street from Las Tunas Drive. I think they've con-
formed to the solution of putting the parking they need onsite - onsite
parking is what I intend to get across to the rest of the City Council.
Question.
Yes - Councilman Hannah.
How many parking spaces are we requirin9?
Is it.........
I don't know.
Well at this point......
Mr. Woolard....
I'm not sure how many many you're requiring - its really a decision of the
Council. I believe their attorney proposed that they would have on the
property at least one space for each four persons who would be on the property
at any.. time. And I guess that with what... 30 some odd members.
Question - may I ask a question?
Yes - please.
Is that your intent - that you will provide 1 on........ 4 on 1?
If you determine that - yes - we will comply.
-22-
HANNAH
BARBOSA
HANNAH
BARBOSA
PELLEGRINO
LOJESKI
PELLEGRINO
MILLER
BARBOSA
MILLER
BARBOSA
r~ILLER
That will be included in the covenant?.........Thank you.
Thats correct - so that if we're at 36 or fewer its 9 - if we grow we've got
to come up with the parking or we can't do it.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you Mr. Barbosa.
We have.......
I will make that in the form of a MOTION if its clarified to our City
Attorney Mr. Mayor.
I would like Mr. Barbosa to restate the two covenants
th,t th" ",,'d ""lIII
be subject to a final
to and I would like to recommend that those covenants
review by me as to their enforceability. And we have to come back with a
resolution if thats your action tonight. At the next council meeting I'm
going to recommend that you direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution
to reflect this and then at that time I will be able to advise as to the
legality of the whole process.
Mr. Mayor I can restate - there's three not two. The three conditions we
will accept - gladly accepted - are these. Number 1 - the use shall never
exceed 50 persons. Number 2 - the use shall not be transferable - and we
will place that specific limitation ~ and I will talk to the City Attorney
and we'll discuss those authorities so thats enforceable - we'll accept it.
So a limit of 50 - no transfer or sale of the property with that use. And
Number 3 - that we will maintain at all times a 1 to 4 ratio of cars to
parking - within the parameters of 50 maximum.
And would you agree that the CUP could be revoked if the membership exceeds
a certain number?
If it exceeds 50 its revoked.
Thats a material breach of the conditions
and it is revokable.
I
Thank you.
-23-
BARBOSA
PELLEGRINO
HALTOM
LOJESKI
PELLEGRINO
LOJESKI
PELLEGRINO
LOJESKI
I
PELLEGRINO
LOJESKI
HALTOM
I
Clearly..:.. Thank you very much.
I. will include that in my r~OTION, Mr. Miller?
Well......1 can put that in my second.
Discussion....... any discussion?
Call for the question.
I simply.......
Oh excuse me - I'm sorry Mr. Mayor.
Pardon me..... I just simply have a little bit of trouble with this - you
know we have a Planning Commission which we...... obviously have sit and
review this type of situation - and again I go back to my original question -
and I think there has been substantial changes in whats in front of us as
far as printed material and what our Planning Commission acted on. And I
really would like to see their input and I would strongly urge the Council
to consider giving this back with the appropriate information - the appro-
priate changes as outlined on this new plan which none of us have seen -
with the hypothetical 12 parking spaces - and it should go back to the
Planning Commission. Now we don't know whether this - whether the parking
can all fit in there - if 12 spaces can fit onsite - now what are we doing -
now where are we? We have certain rules and regulation as far as spaces -
as far as turn-around space - as far as size of parking spaces and stalls -
I've got some real problems with this.
Mr. Mayor
Dick.. .
You know - all parking is hypothetical - I don't care - take your own situ-
ation in Town Center - I'm sure that you'd maximize the parking you'd find
out that its inadequate there for the occupancy - but when is anything fully
occupied - you know - I don't know about their growth factor but I know the
vast majority of church's that I'm associated with have a little problem with
any growth. They have a problem getting their regular congregation there
-24-
LOJESKI
PELLEGRINO
LOJESKI
WOOLARD
LOJESKI
WOOLARD
LOJESKI
-- much less growth. I don't have that much of a problem with parking be-
cause parking is seldom ever used to its maximum. I seldom go in any place
that is fully parked and most church's to be' successful - really successful
church's in Arcadia - that I see - they park on the street there too - you
know. So if you want to apply the same criteria to those church's - they
no longer would qualify - you know. I think that we're making too much out
of too small a situation and I agree with you emphatically about the Planning
Commission - that they should see the same thing we see. However, I feel
that this is a little bit of an exception in that we're dealing with
that'was already really available on the premises - that nobody just
it out for anybody - but I agree with you about sending something to
parkil
drew
Planning
doing something to the Planning Commission but I think it would be
sufficient to send them a new drawing and an explanation of why we did rather
than ..... if I were them I would be affronted if we went over their head -
you know - I understand that. But I don't feel its of a magnitude that it
warrants going back to the Planning Commission - back to the City Council -
then to have the City Attorney draw-up some new legislation to - you know
we're talking about two months down the road - you know - and things really
get bogged down in city government - its not that big a deal. If they're
building a ten story building - yes.
What are we looking at time wise Bill if it went back to the Commission?
Mr. Mayor......
Can you give me some sort of an idea?
Well it would depend somewhat on the applicants - but theoretically it could
be back at the Planning Commission at their next regular meeting.
Which is next Tuesday...
Next Tuesday night and come back to Council at the Councils first meeting
in November.
I
Which would be November 1.
-25-
"
HAL TOf~
HOOLARD
CITY CLERK
PELLEGRINO
LOJESKI
MILLER
I
LOJESKI
AUDIENCE
LOJESKI
BARBOSA
PELLEGRINO
BARBOSA
WATTS
LOJESKI
WATTS
HALTOM
MILLER
I
Then how long for Mr. Miller's.....
Then you have another two weeks for the preparation of the resolution -
so that would be basically a what - four week delay.
Six weeks.
Six weeks.
Can't he do his part kind of simultaneously?
Yes - there'~,no problem with that. That would take place simultaneously -
as far as the legal part of it - Mr. Barbosa and I could get together and
prepare something that is justifiable in a legal sense - I'm sure. If
there's any problems I'd report that.
The situation is not new - its been going on since June? Four months....
Background talking......
Would it be a real hardship to ask you to go another month? You know.. ...
You wouldn't want to pay a lawyer for more hours than you had to.
Amen.
Thats my only concern - its consideration of the clients having to keep
me on the meter - my kids love it - but the clients don't appreciate it.
May I ask a question......
Would you mind sharing that with the rest of the Council.
I was just informing the Mayor that there would be no loss of time if the
City Attorney, in the meantime, continued to work on preparing the documents.
You could refer the matter to the Planning Commission for their meeting next
week and then it could be back before the Council with their action on
November 1st.
Call for the question - lets roll lets........ fish or cut bait...
There is a MOTION and Councilman Haltom has called for the question -
I just wanted to clarify - Mr. Barbosa - that the motion is to approve
this but direct us to bring back a final resolution adopting it at the
next council meeting. So the action wouldn't be final until November 1st.
Ok - thank you.
-26-
,>
HANNAH
LOJESKI
HANNAH
MILLER
LOJESKI
PELLEGRINO
LOJESKI
HALTOM
LOJESKI
C!TY CLERK
I'd like to add one more thing.
Yes.
My vote is contingent upon that the City Attorney accepting the covenant
as being legal. That has to be a forgone conclusion as far as I am
concerned. And I'm voting in favor of it only because I'm assuming that
the City Attorney will have the last word on whether or not that covenant
is legal.
Yes, I think we all agree that your approval is predicated on the validity
of that condition and we will certainly report back on that prior to t.he I
next meeting - of those conditions.
If your still going to have it back gentlemen in the same amount of t,me -
why not still have the Planning Commission look at it and get their input.
I can't see what would be harmful in that.
Mr. Mayor my problem with that - and I've served on the Planning Commission -
and you are absolutely 100% right - what they see is oranges and what we see
is apples - because of the fact that is the procedure of the local govern-
ment - when Planning Commission directs somebody on what to do and how to
do it - then they appeal it to Council - they make sure that when they come
in front of Council - what Planning has corrected or told them to do - that
that is included in that project. Not only do we see something they haven't
seen but I'm sure that Mr. Gottuso and his attorney have tailored this
condition to what the Planning Commission had setforth at that first meeting.
And thats why my reason was for moving it - but if you feel satisified at
moving it to - I'd just like to get it done.
Well it still going to be done in the same amount of time - thats what I'm.....
we'l ,Ok. . . .
Call for the question.. lets not kill it.
Call for the question... go ahead.
th, ",;, I
Haltom-yes, Hannah-yes, Pellegrino-yes, Lojeski-no - and only on
that I would like to see the Planninq Commission review it....
-27-