CDC - Item 4 - Playground Equipment at Garvey/Sally Tanner ParkTO: BILL CROWE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FROM: MICHAEL D. BURBANK, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATIOQ~-,.
DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2005
RE: AUTHORIZATION TO FILE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND
ACCEPT THE INSTALLATION OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT
GARVEY AND SALLY TANNER PARKS
The Contractor "ORTCO INC.", has completed the Installation of Play Equipment at
Garvey and Sally Tanner Parks for the bid amount of $ 82,842.38.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Rosemead Community Development Commission accept
the project and authorize staff to file the Notice of Completion.
COMMISSION AGENDA
0 C T 112005
ITEM No.-Il
07-n-b9s/sb
ARA& Rosemead Community Development Commission
ROL 8838 East Valley Boulevard, CA 91770 Tel 626.569.2100 Fax 626.307.9218
TO: BILL CROWE,, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FROM: MICHAEL D. BURBANK, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATIO"'Q2l~-_..._
DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2005
RE: AUTHORIZATION TO FILE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND
ACCEPT THE INSTALLATION OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT
GARVEY AND SALLY TANNER.PARKS
The Contractor "ORTCO INC.", has completed the Installation of Play Equipment at
Garvey and Sally Tanner Parks for the bid amount of $ 82,842.38.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Rosemead Community Development Commission accept
the project and authorize staff to file the Notice of Completion.
UDic' i~1"5 p$~v?~1 A-GL1dI3A
0 L 1 N r i i
f ~ t~u~7
07-n-b9s/sb
John A. Henning, Jr.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
October 11, 2005
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
Re: City Council Appeal / DR 03-110 ZV 05-328
Honorable Councilmembers:
As counsel for Mr. Ban ("Bob") Nguyen, appellant in the above-referenced matter, I
request that the City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission dated August 15,
2005, adopting a resolution approving design review 03-110 and Zone Variance 05-328 for the
conversion of the property at 8855 Valley Boulevard from a commercial bank to commercial
food establishment with less than the minimum number of required parking stalls ("the Project').
Such request is based on the following grounds:
A. . The Project is not permitted in the CBD zone because the existing office
structure is a "nonconforming building" and "nonconforming use" for purposes of parking and
in such circumstances a variance cannot be used to convert an office use to a prohibited
restaurant use. The existing office structure is a "nonconforming building" and "nonconforming
use" for purposes of parking. (Rosemead Municipal Code ("RMC") chap. 17.17.04.020.) As
staff has reported, there are 32,660 square feet of existing office development in the Universal
Bank building. (See August 15, 2005, Staff Report to Planning Commission ("PC Staff Report")
at pp. 4-5.1 In order to conform with present parking requirements, an office structure of this size
would require one space per 250 square feet of floor space of fraction thereof, i.e., 131 spaces.
(RMC sec. 17.84.100(A).) Yet, there are only 58 parking spaces on-site. (Id. at p. 4.) The
Project is located in the CBD zone, which permits restaurants and cafes, but only if the off--street
parking requirement for such use is met. (RMC sec. 17.48.020.) Because the parking
requirements for restaurants are especially high (i.e., 1 space per 100 feet), where, as here, the
existing structure and/or use are already nonconforming, the Code expressly declines to provide
t The August 15, 2005, Staff Report to the Planning Commission appears to be unpaginated.
125 North Sweetzer Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone 323 655-6171 Fax 323 655-6109
lawgroup.com
Honorable Members of the City Council
October 11, 2005
Page 2
for a conversion of the existing use to a more-intensive, restaurant use. (RMC sec.
17.48.130(c).) The staff report implies that this deficiency can be cured by a parking variance.
(PC Staff Report, p. 2.) However, it cannot be. Rather, what staff has recommended, and what
the Planning Commission has effectively granted, is a use variance, i.e., one which would allow
the establishment of a use - namely, a restaurant use - that is otherwise prohibited by the zoning
designation. Such use variances are simply prohibited by State law. (See Government Code sec.
65906 ("A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or
activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel
of property.")
B. The approval of the Project is dependent on the provision of narking on a separate
lot from the main building without a recorded covenant promising to maintain such narking in
violation of the Code. The Code does provide for the "collective use of space for off-street
parking." (RMC chap. 17.84.120.) The applicant and the appellant have reciprocal easements
for parking and ingress/egress on portions of their respective properties. (See Exhibits A and B
hereto.) However, the mere existence of such easements is not sufficient to satisfy the parking
requirements under the Code. Rather, where the lot to be used is separate from the main
building, the owner of such separate lot must record a covenant to provide the parking: "When
the required off-street parking space is provided on a separate lot from the main building, there
shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder a covenant by the owner or owners of the
separate lot, for the benefit of the city, to the effect that such owner or owners will continue to
maintain such parking space for the building so long as the building is maintained." (RMC chap.
17.84.120; see also RMC chap. 17.04.020 ("'Lot' means a parcel of real property shown as a
delineated parcel with a number or other separate designation on a plat recorded in the office of
the County Recorder As a matter of law, the applicant is not the "owner" of the adjoining
lot; rather, his easement is merely a privilege. Cody F. v. Faletti (2001) 92 Cal.App.4' 1232;
Kazi v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (2001) 24 Cal.4,' 871. The owner here is the
appellant, and no covenant conforming with the Code has ever been recorded by the appellant.
C. The approval of Zone Variance 05-328 was an abuse of discretion because the
findings supporting the decision are not supported by substantial evidence. The necessary
findings are set out in RMC chapter 17.108.020 and are recited, in turn, in Planning Commission
Resolution 05-41 ("PCR"). The following findings are not supported by substantial evidence:
1. "The project does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limjtations upon other properties in the vicinity." (PCR sec 3(A)) There is
substantial evidence in the record that the project grants a unique privilege to the
applicant, i.e., to utilize an easement on a neighboring property to satisfy the parking
requirements of the Project, without consent of the owner of such property, and indeed
over his express objection, and in express contravention of Section 17.84.120, which
requires a covenant benefiting the City to provide such parking. There is no substantial
Honorable Members of the City Council
October 11, 2005
Page 3
evidence in the record to contravene this fact.
2. "The project will not be materially detrimental to the public health or
welfare or iniurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity" (PCR sec
3(B)). There is substantial evidence in the record that there are reciprocal easements
between the property owners for a portion of the parking area. However, there is no
substantial evidence indicating that such easements will preclude any injury to the
adjoining property or improvements. To the contrary, there is substantial, unrebutted
evidence in the record showing that:
(a) The Project would subject the existing parking easement on the
appellant's property to a greater burden by substantially increasing the parking
demand generated by the applicant's development (i.e., the conversion of 4,390
square feet from office, which pursuant to the Code would require 18 spaces (1
per 250 square feet), to restaurant use, which pursuant to the Code would require
44 spaces (1 per 100 square feet). (RMC sec. 17.84.070, sec. 17.84.100.) The
applicant's easement is limited in scope, and may not be expanded or relocated
without the consent of the appellant. Hannah v. Pogue (1944) 23 Cal.2d 849. No
such consent was granted here, and indeed, any increased burden would properly
subject the applicant to a legal action for damages, specific performance, and/or a
declaration of the parties' rights under the easement.
(b) The applicant lacks any right under the easement to "restripe" or
otherwise reconfigure parking spaces or circulation in the area where he holds an
easement, which area is owned by the appellant.
(c) On the property where the applicant does hold fee title, the
applicant lacks the right to alter the existing circulation by eliminating traffic
lanes leading from the main entrance of the property and replacing them with
parking, absent consent from the appellant. The appellant holds an easement to
use such lanes to serve his own parcel, and has continuously used them over time,
and would be materially harmed by the loss of such lanes. (See Youngstown Steel
Products Co. of California v. Ciry of Los Angeles (1952) 38 Cal.2d 407.) Were
the applicant to proceed to eliminate such access, he would properly be subject to
legal action for damages, specific performance, and/or declaration of the parties'
rights under the easement.
3. "A traffic and parking study was completed by a registered traffic
engineering firm that analyzed peak hour parking demands with and without the office
area conversion and found that there will be sufficient narking space available to
customers and employees within the reconfigured existing parking lot areas This
Honorable Members of the City Council
October 11, 2005
Page 4
includes a re-design of the main entrv along Valley Boulevard to add an additional row of
angled stalls within this area. These areas include portions of the shopping center parking
lot that have existing reciprocal narking agreements recorded on the deeds to the
properties." (PCR sec. 3(B)). This finding assumes that the existing parking lot area
presently serving the development on the Project site can, as part of the Project, be
"reconfigured" and that the entry can be "re-designed" to add parking. However, there is
no substantial evidence supporting this assumption, and there is substantial, unrebutted
evidence to the contrary, including:
(a) The applicant has no easement for any of the parking to the rear of
the structures on appellant's property.
(b) As to the area in front of the structures on the appellant's property;
although the applicant has an easement across such property, he does not own, or
have any ownership interest in, such property. Cody F. v. Faletti (2001) 92
Cal.AppAth 1232; Kazi v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (2001) 24 Cal.4`'
871.
(c) The easement held by the applicant allows for "ingress; egress; the
parking of motor vehicles for customers, patrons, suppliers and employees of the
owner, lessee, sublessee and concessionaires." (See Exhibit A hereto.) It does not
expressly or impliedly provide any right to reconfigure parking on appellant's
land, nor can any right be implied by facts or law. Nor does it contain any express
or implied obligation for appellant to reconfigure parking to accommodate
increased parking burden created by the applicant. To the contrary, the applicant
is free to retain the parking in exactly the configuration it presently exists, for the
sake of maximizing convenience, safety, or any other purpose he may deem
appropriate, provided he does not unduly burden any right the applicant may have
under the easement.
%71 (d) The appellant has an identically worded easement for access on the
applicant's parcel. (See Exhibit A hereto.) This easement precludes the applicant
from reconfiguring such access in order to add parking spaces on his parcel.
(e) The proposed reconfiguration is not technically feasible because
there is not sufficient space for regulation parking stalls in the places indicated on
the site plan, and there are obstructions that block access to numerous of the
parking stalls indicated.2
z These issues will be the subject of a separate presentation during the public hearing by applicant's expert,
who has surveyed the site and compared it to the plans submitted to the City.
Honorable Members of the City Council
October 11, 2005
Page 5
4. "The project will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan"
(PCR sec. 3(C). This finding is not supported by substantial evidence.
5. "The proposed project is in accordance with the General Plan which
designates the site for Commercial use. Restaurant and coffee shop uses are consistent
with commercial land uses." (PCR sec 3(C) This finding is not supported by substantial
evidence.
6. "That because of special circumstances the strict enforcement of the code
would deprive the subiect property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity under identical zone classification." (PCR sec 3(D) There is no substantial
evidence of any "special circumstance" that justifies allowing the establishment of a more
intensive restaurant use given the nonconforming status of the existing office use, and the
lack of any covenant with the adjoining owner for provision of any parking at all, much
less the amount required by the Code. Nor is there evidence that other properties in the
vicinity under identical zoning classification (i.e., CBD) enjoy the privilege to avoid
parking requirements under similar circumstances. Simply stated, the variance is nothing
more than an illegal waiver of parking requirements, aimed specifically at this project and
for the benefit of this developer.
7. The existing shopping center as built has surolus leasable tenant spaces
that if devoted to the uses allowed by section 17.48 130(c) would be less conducive to
the viable operation of the shopping center than the proposed restaurant uses Other
restaurant uses within the CBD zone have similarly been granted variances for minimum
number of parking stalls. By restriping and reconfiguring the parking areas in
accordance with the approved plans the property owner has met parking requirements to
the extent economically feasible" is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
There is no substantial evidence to support these findings, as follows:
(a) There is no substantial evidence that unleased tenant spaces in the
existing shopping center are "less conducive to the viable operation of the
shopping center" than the uses expressly allowed by RMC sec. 17.48.130(C).
First, there is no evidence whatsoever placing into question the "viability" of the
Universal Square shopping center as a whole, or of the Universal Bank building in
particular. Second, even if viability were in question, there is no evidence
whatsoever implying that a restaurant use would be more viable for the operation
of the shopping center than the uses to which the vacant spaces could be
converted pursuant to RMC sec. 17.48.130(C), which uses include a host of retail
and service uses that would place a more appropriate burden on parking at the
Center.
Honorable Members of the City Council
October 11, 2005
Page 6
(b) There is no evidence whatsoever that other restaurant uses within
the CBD zone have "similarly been granted variances for minimum number of
parking stalls." Other variances may have been granted; however, there is no
evidence that any of them provided, as this one does, a simple waiver of any
additional parking based solely upon a series of fallacious assumptions about the
availability of parking in the adjoining lot and the right to simply "paint over" part
of the access road on the site, which is subject to an easement held by the
adjoining property owner.
(c) The assumption that there can be "restriping and reconfiguring in
accordance with the approved plans" directly contravenes the legal rights of the
appellant. As stated elsewhere herein, the applicant has no right to restripe or
reconfigure parking on the appellant's property, and even on his own property he
lacks the right to reconfigure access so as to delete two driving lanes and replace
them with parking, given that such access is subject to an easement held by the
appellant. Moreover, as stated elsewhere herein, the proposed restriping and
reconfiguration is not technically feasible - simply stated, the required spaces
cannot fit where the applicant proposes to put them.
D. The approval of the variance fails to satisfy the Government Code criteria for
variances. Under state law, "Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted
only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the
adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated."
(Government Code sec. 65906. (See Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of
Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506, 518 (1974) (requiring all Government Code criteria to be met),
Orinda Association v. Board of Supervisors, 182 C.A.3d 1145 (1986) (height variance
disallowed for failure to meet criteria in Government Code). The findings referenced above are
the sole support for the approval of the project.
E. The variance is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. See City of Carmel-
by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, 137 Cal.App.3d 964 (1982); Neighborhood Action Group v.
County ofCalaveras, 156 Ca1.App.3d 1176 (1984).
F. The approval of Design Review 03-110 was an abuse of discretion because the
findings supporting the decision are not supported by substantial evidence The necessary
findings are set out in RMC chapter 17.72.050, and recited, in turn, in the Planning
Commission's resolution. The following findings are not supported by substantial evidence:
Honorable Members of the City Council
October 11, 2005
Page 7
1. "The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the
proposed structure and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general
neighborhood." (PCR sec. 2(Al) The relationship between the proposed structure and
the development of the neighboring parcel, containing the balance of the Universal
Square Shopping Center, is characterized by reciprocal easements for parking and access.
Although the applicant has an easement on appellant's property, this does not constitute
ownership of such property, nor does it create an interest in the land itself. Cody F. v.
Faletti (2001) 92 Cal.AppAth 1232; Kazi v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (2001) 24
Cal.0 871. Further, the applicant's easement is limited in scope, and may not be
expanded or relocated without the consent of the appellant. Hannah v. Pogue (1944) 23
Cal.2d 849. No such consent was granted here, and indeed, any increased burden would
properly subject the applicant to a legal action. Further, as to that portion of applicant's
property on which the applicant proposes to reconfigure access by reducing ingress/egress
lanes from 4 to 2 lanes and replace the removed lanes with parking stalls, applicant has
no right to do so because the access easement is fixed at that place. Youngstown Steel
Products Co. of California v. City of Los Angeles (1952) 38 Cal.2d 407. Were the
applicant to alter the easement in this way, he would be subject legal action.
2. "The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the
manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected
against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the
environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment trash storage and
loading areas." (PCR sec. 2(B). The plan submitted by the applicant does not indicate the
manner in which surrounding properties are protected against adverse parking impacts of
the project. Such adverse impacts constitute environmental impacts. (See CEQA
Guidelines, Appendix G, Sec. XV(f) (requiring consideration for purposes of determining
significant impact under CEQA of the question "Would the project Result in
inadequate parking capacity?") The project would manifestly result in inadequate parking
capacity, for the following reasons:
(a) The site on which the project is proposed, according to the staff
report, contains only 58 spaces presently, and only 81 spaces after reconfiguration
proposed by the applicant. (PC Staff Report at p. 4.)
(b) The code requirement for the proposed development is either:
i. Using the methodology employed by staff, 32,660
square feet at 4 spaces per 1000 square feet = 131 spaces
ii. Using the methodology required by the Code, 4,390
Honorable Members of the City Council
October 11, 2005
Page 8
square feet of restaurant use at 1 space per 100 square feet, plus
28,270 square feet at 4 spaces per 1000 square feet, = 158 spaces.
(c) Although the staff report states there are 310 useable spaces in the
lot (SR-4), given that staff s own assertion is that 58 spaces are on the project site,
the balance of 252 of the spaces are on appellant's parcel.
(d) As the staff report notes, some of the parking on appellant's parcel
is behind the structures on that parcel, in an area not subject to any easement held
by the applicant.
(e) As to the parking area in the front of the structures on appellant's
parcel, where the applicant has an easement, he does not own, or have any
ownership interest in, such property.
(f) The easement allows for "ingress; egress; the parking of motor
vehicles for customers, patrons, suppliers and employees of the owner, lessee,
sublessee and concessionaires." (See Exhibits A, B.) The easement does not
expressly or impliedly provide any right to reconfigure parking on appellant's
land, nor can any right be implied by facts or law. Nor does it contain any express
or'implied obligation for appellant to reconfigure parking to accommodate
increased parking burden created by the applicant. To the contrary, the applicant
is free to retain the parking in exactly the configuration it presently exists, for the
sake of maximizing convenience, safety, or any other purpose he may deem
appropriate, provided he does not unduly burden any right the applicant may have
under the easement.
(g) The appellant has an identically worded easement for access on the
applicant's parcel. (See Exhibits A, B.) This easement precludes the applicant
from reconfiguring such access in order to add parking spaces on his parcel.
(h) The proposed reconfiguration is not technically feasible because
there is not sufficient space for regulation parking stalls in the places indicated on
the site plan, and there are obstructions that block access to numerous of the
parking stalls indicated.
3. "The site plan and the design of the buildings narking areassigns
landscaping, luminaries and other site features indicates that proper consideration has
been given to both the functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and
pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public
Honorable Members of the City Council
October 11, 2005
Page 9
streets." (PCR sec. 2(F) The design of parking areas and access is dependent upon three
assumptions for which there is no evidence in the record:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to substantially increase the parking
burden on the easement held on the appellant's parcel;
(b) That the applicant is entitled to restripe and otherwise reconfigure
parking on the appellant's property, or require appellant to do so; and
(c) That the applicant may substantially alter, indeed partially remove,
driving lanes used for vehicular ingress and egress, over which lanes the appellant
has an easement, without the permission of the appellant.
G. The use of a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEOA") is not warranted here because there is substantial evidence supporting a fair
argument that the project may have a significant impact on the environment due to unusual
circumstances. Such substantial evidence, as set forth in more detail herein and elsewhere in the
Project file, includes, but is not limited to, the following facts: (1) that the applicant lacks the
right to increase the scope of his existing parking rights on the adjoining property; (2) that he
cannot legally restripe or reconfigure parking or circulation on appellant's parcel, or require the
appellant to do so; (3) that he cannot restripe or reconfigure access lanes on his property so as to
convert such area to new parking spaces; and (4) that the parking plan proposed by the applicant
is technically infeasible. Accordingly, there is no substantial evidence that the applicant can
provide the parking that is essential to a finding that the project would adequately serve the
combined parking needs of the two parcels and thereby not adversely affect the environment.
(See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Sec. XV(f) (requiring consideration for purposes of
determining significant impact under CEQA of the question "Would the project Result in
inadequate parking capacity?"; see City of Orange v. Valenti (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 240.) As a
result, parking impacts of the Project will be felt beyond the center, on residential streets and at
the school that adjoins the shopping center to the north. This constitutes "unusual
circumstances" sufficient to preclude the application of any categorical exemption. (See Lewis v.
Seventeenth Dist. Agric. Assn (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 823, 829.) Further, the potential for these
impacts requires preparation of a focused EIR for the Project.
H. The use of a categorical exemption under CEOA is not warranted here because the
original project was never reviewed under CEQA (See Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main
San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4t' 1165; City of Ukiah v. County of
Mendocino (1987) 196 Ca1.App.3d 47.)
1. The categorical exemption for "minor modifications" (CEQA Guidelines sec
15303) does not apples. The proposed restaurants exceed 2500 square feet in area. Further,.
Honorable Members of the City Council
October 11, 2005
Page 10
as to the alternative 1'0,000 square foot ceiling provided for in the Guideline, this ceiling is not
applicable because the Project site is not "zoned for such [proposed restaurant] use." As
discussed in greater detail elsewhere herein, the CBD zone in which the proposed Project would
be located simply does not allow for a restaurant use when the use is to be establish by means of
converting a nonconforming office use. Moreover, on its face, the mere fact a variance is being
sought here means that the zoning does not allow for the proposed use, i.e., a restaurant with
insufficient parking.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that you reverse the August 15 decision of the
Planning Commission in this matter.
Very truly yours,
'y
John A. Henning, Jr.
Enclosures
e.
- RecoaoiRC Reoueayco My
Nf4i/ 7A-c Sn'r.-AA'&r n
-
Universal Square
+..e P. O, Best 246
w~ Rosemead, CaLifcrnia
aaL
a.
*1Ma1sa
d
ane.aB
913 0
b
J
SPACE ABOVE rMrO l1He FOP RCOOROER'a USC
'•y t,Lr Iota AOgelee 4t
+ - ; + ~ + •~I AFiVC IAi.r ~ IN THIS SPACE
~a`tc I.: ffiaette
1 ~ 1
Corporation Grant Deed 3
-~;t_j n,ia nee rv,,,,,am s. nns invu„ee w.e ~wun werwr..
:'ea
A FOR A VALUAffiS CO"ID~nOtt, > pt of wMC, if hereby a*nvwledgt .
' UNIVERSAL SAVINGS AND LCAN ASSCCIATION. O9 gV:.
arotpontian atgmited undo dw fan of ore .taw of Caliornia, S
,t i„ y;$? '[:?'i heaby CRAMS to T .
UNSVERSA:. SQUARE, a Califarnia corpnrnlinn,
V the faRowisg decribed real property in wv City of Rosemead, Ceunyd Loa Angeles ,torte e<Glu amiss - .
Parcel l;.tr.
That pamon of Lot 3, in Block of the Rosemc^d Tract, in the Cit•,, of
r Rosemead. County of Lae Angeles, State of California, as pro me,. ~•rdni ,
4l, rot. L f-` in book 13 page 194 5f Mapd,-U' the etfice of the aorttr/ -ccerder cf said
county, described ae follows: 2
Beginning at a point is the westerly line of said or distant thereon aov!h
' C' 59' 00" asst, 110.00 feet from the northwest comer of said let; thenea par-
5.9y allot with the northerly line of .aid lot, naeth 97' 40' 0s" v.+n t, 315.17 feat .,i.'
to the easterly line of the west half of said lot: thence along said easterly Line li
fife' south 0' 58' 5Z" east, 37.53 feet to the southcrly lint of the northerly 147.53 ;
y;bux feet of the east half of said lot. thence along said southerly line north 87' 40' 08" y
not, Z90.19 feet to the westerly lino 0f th'±.e-4st5r1y'5 fact 0f sold loll diena-
l
along into tabu mtlrNoned westerly une, oourh 0' 58' 45" east, to a point ~ .:'A. .
. i distant northerly thereon 5 feet from the northerly line of the. southerly 11 '~l
> + feet of said lot; thence southwesterly in a direct line to a point in said last - - r
mentioned northerly line distant westerly thereon 5 feet from said westerly - f .
line of the easterly 25 feet of said lot thence along said northerly line of the . , ;
'
southerly 17 feet of said lot, south 87' 39' 30" went, 595.33 fact to a point
i distant easterly thereon 5 feet from said westerly line of said lot; thence north-
westerly in a direct line to a paint in said last mentioned westerly line distant I
northerly tcercon 5 feet from said loot mentioned northerly lime; thence along _ r'v1 i
' said westerly line of said lot, north 0' 59' 00" we at, 495.10 feet to the point of r •',y
r:5
EXCEPT therefrom that portion of said land described as follows:
,S .yew
Be#=iag at the moat southerly southeast corner of said land; thence along
the southerly line of said land, south 87' 39' 30" west 297. 00 feet; thence
north Z' Z0' 30" west Z30, 93 feet; thence north 87' 39' 30° east 307.49 feat
to `lst eastarly Hart of said land; thence alone the easter.v and soiahdes rly
j lines of said Iand, south 0' 58' 45" ..at ZZ6. 00 feet. sad seuela 43' 20' Z3" -
west 7.16 feet to the point of beginning.
_ Reserving therefrom an easement for ingress: agree,; the parting ad motor
vehicles for customers, patrons, -suppliers and employees of the owner,
lessee, sub-lases and concessionaires; mad purposes and public utilities
over tbetportion of amid land "eluded within the seuharly, 280 Sect (measured
along the eaetezly and westerly lined) of raid lot
EXHIBIT A
,
4
x 'J
r ~ e , amia:
Z
Parcel is
That portion of Lot 3, in Block 4, of the Rosemead Tract, in the City of
_ Rosemead, county of Los A.agelea, State of Ca li£oiaia, as per map recorded
R
in book 12 page 194 of Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said
county, described as follows:
Beginning at a point is the weate rly lice of said lot distant the reap south
0' 59' 00" east, 110,00 fact from the northwest corner of said let; thence par-
allel with the northerly line of said lot, north 87' 40' 08" east, 315. 19 feet
to he easterly line of the west half Of said lot; thence along said easterly lice
south 0° 58' 52" east. 37. 53 feet to the southerly line of the northerly 147.53
feet of the east half of said lot; thence along said southerly line north 87' 40' 08"
east, .290. 19 feet to the westerly lire of the easterly 25 feet of said lot; thence
along said last mentioned westerly line, aoutll 0' 53' 45" csat,'to a point
distant northerly thereon 5 feet from the northerly line of the southerly 17
feet of said lot; thence southwesterly in a direct line to a point in said last
mentioned northerly line distant westerly thereon 5 feet from said westerly
L line of the easterly 25 feet of 'said IaO thence along said northerly line of the
southerly 17 feet of said lot, 'south 37' 39' 30" west, 595. 33 feet to a paint
distant easterly thereon 5 feet from said westerly line of said lot; thence nortl,-dist
westerly in a direct line to a point in said last mentioned westerl~ line assn t
northerly thereon 5 feet from said last mentioned northerly line; E
said westerly line of said lot, north 0' 59' 00" west, 495. 10 feet to the point of
beginning. CD
CJ
EXCEPT therefrom that pottien of said land described as follows,
Segi$aing at the most southerly southeast eornor of said land; thence along
tile_ southerly line of said land, south 07' 39' 70" went 297.00 feet,fheaaa
no rta 2° 20' 30" west 230, 93 feet; thence north 87' 39' 30" east 307.49 feet
to the easterly line said lnd;4thence
et:long t the 00 feet. aterand l south southeasterly
line s of said land, o
west 7. 16 feet to the point of beginning.
Reserving therefrom an easement for ingress; egress; the parking of motor
vehicles for cuatcmers,.patrons, suppliers and employees of the owner,
lessee, epb-lessee and conceeeicnaires; road purposes and public utilities
over that portion of add land included within the southerly Z80 feet (measured
along the easterly and. westerly lines) of said lot.
parts,
- An casement for ingress; egress; the parking of motor vahicles for customers,
patrons, suppliers and employees of the owner, lessee, sub-lessee and .
concessionaires; road purposee and public utilities over that portion off LoLot s 3
in Block 4 of the Rosemead Tract, in the City of Rosemead. County Angeles, State of Calif oznia, ae =o ozdeirecorded
aid county. described a~ollows:
Maps, is the Office of the county
Beginning. at the intersecti on of the westerly line of the easterly 25 feet of
said lot, with the northerly line of the southerly 17 feet of Said lot; thence
:Iona said northerly.line, south 87' 39' 30" west 175.00 feet tho th970 e 39 e3ppoint Cr7
- 11.-e11
of begtaaaiag; thence continuing along said aarther.y ,
west 127:00 feet; thence north Z' 20' 30" went nee. 93 teen thmee north
87' 39' 30" east Z85.00 feet; thence.south 2' ZO' 30" east 47. 00 feet; thence
south 87' 39' 30" west 1.58:D0 feet; thence south Z' 20' 30" east 133. 93 feet
to the:true point of beginning, -
r
i!
o~
40.
ti.^
,_4
o=
O'a
t.
M.
3 7. .
r
ti
es'
r
a
:C.
0
4
_ WAt
SL'LL9 f M 95.00 N _
ly I
Rn\ - fv X'y I
3 ` .f8'f9l M ,44pLL N I Q
m -yw a tat .:max
Z ON 130NVd + R
s ~ JII,
6
M O_ }z - .cs~siz _ rn .oc.ouM
g
z
n
le
N
w y.,
U
CL l~'.9
FM1~
a
~t t
Tabk
'JJ~R~li
'J4jty
x7]
~Aaei
3 .S
M ,W,6Sg0 N
~3YJSRW
FXHTRIT-R-
n IWJ
J
w
I
L
John A. Henning, Jr.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
October 17, 2005
VIA U.S. MAIL
Nancy Valdenama
City Clerk
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
Re: Cony of Hearing Tape / City Council Hearing 10/11105 / DR 03-110, ZV 05-328
Dear Ms. Valderrama:
This is to follow up on our conversation of today, in which I asked for a copy of the tape
of the above-referenced item from the City Council's October 11, 2005 hearing.
Enclosed is a check for $15.00 pursuant to your request. If you can return a receipt for
this with the tape, I would appreciate that.
I have provided you my Federal Express account number. It is 2407-4646-0. Please feel
free to use this number to send the tape. You should specify Priority Overnight, and sign the
release at the bottom to allow delivery without a signature.
Anything you can do to get the tape out tomorrow (Tuesday) would be most helpful.
Very truly yours
4, 4I n
~ 1
John A. Henning, Jr.
Enclosure
125 North Sweetzer Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone 323 655-6171 Fax 323 655-6109
jhenning@planninglawgroup.com