For Planning Commission Meeting of December 12, 2018
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners
APPROVAL: Robb Steel, Assistant CA / Development Services Director
REVIEWED BY: Gina M. Gibson, Planning Manager
FROM: Edgar Gonzalez, Contract Planner
Title
Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-0040: A request to allow the establishment of a tattoo parlor within an existing 1,100 square foot tenant space on a multi-tenant commercial building located at 124 W. Foothill Boulevard within the Commercial Pedestrian (C-P) zone of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
Body
APPLICANT:
Emmanuel Sanchez, 704 N. Riverside Avenue, Rialto, CA 92376.
LOCATION
The subject site is located at 124 W. Foothill Boulevard, Unit A (APN: 0127-591-25) (Refer to attached Location Map (Exhibit A)).
BACKGROUND:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
|
Location |
Existing Land Use |
Zoning |
|
Site |
Commercial Center |
Commercial Pedestrian (C-P)* |
|
North |
Single Family Residence |
Single Family Residential (R-1C) |
|
East |
Hair Salon |
Commercial Pedestrian (C-P)* |
|
South |
Pacific Cash Advance |
Commercial Pedestrian (C-P)* |
|
West |
Restaurant -Chiva Coco |
Commercial Pedestrian (C-P)* |
* Within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
General Plan Designations
|
Location |
General Plan Designation |
|
Site |
Specific Plan |
|
North |
Residential 6 (2.1 - 6.0 dwelling units per acre) |
|
East |
Specific Plan |
|
South |
Specific Plan |
|
West |
Specific Plan |
Site Characteristics
The subject site has a 9,767 square foot parcel of land located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 280 feet west of Riverside Avenue. The site was developed as a multi-tenant commercial building with three (3) tenant spaces. The project site is surrounded by commercial businesses to the east, south, and west within the Commercial Pedestrian (C-P) zone of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. An alley separates the subject site and the residential development to the north, which has a zoning designation of Single Family Residential (R-1C).
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:
Project Proposal
Mr. Sanchez, the applicant, filed a request to establish a tattoo parlor. The establishment will be called “Bridge City Tattoo Gallery”, specializing in body art tattooing. According to the applicant’s plans (Exhibits B & C), the floor area will include six (6) workstations, employee break area, a lobby, a restroom, hand washing sink and a section for equipment clean-up. The proposed hours of operation for the establishment are from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Sundays (Exhibit D).
To date, there are three (3) existing tattoo parlors located within the City. If the Planning Commission decides to approve this establishment, the City will have (4) tattoo parlors within the City.
Previously, the Planning Commission established a policy requiring all tattoo establishments to be separated by a minimum of three-quarters of a mile (3,960 feet) from similar establishment, in order to provide adequate services to different areas in the community. The project site is within 800 feet of a similar tattoo establishment located at 245 W. Foothill Boulevard (Majestic Tattoo), which does not meet the separation criteria policy.
Entitlement Requirements
Table 3.1 (Permitted Uses) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan does not list tattoo shops as a permitted use. However, per Table 3.1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, other uses not listed, including tattoo parlors, are subject to the approval of a Conditional Development Permit by the Planning Commission. As such, the applicant filed a Conditional Development Permit application on September 19, 2018, to allow the establishment of a tattoo parlor within an existing 1,100 square foot tenant space on a multi-tenant commercial building.
Parking Calculations
The required amount of parking pursuant to the Specific Plan for general retail is three (3) spaces per 1,000 square feet of ground-level floor area. The total square footage of the multi-tenant building is 3,300 square feet, which will be composed of all retail business. This translates into a parking requirement of ten (10) parking spaces. The site provides eight (8) parking spaces adjacent to Foothill Boulevard and five (5) parking spaces on the rear of the building, adjacent to the alley. The parking spaces adjacent to the alley are non-accessible parking spaces, as an existing rolling chain-link fence blocks some of the parking spaces and an existing chain-link gate blocks the access to the front of the building. The parking provided does not meet the minimum parking required by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. The following chart displays the minimum parking requirement for the one-story multi-tenant commercial building pursuant to Table 3.4 (Parking Standards) of the Foothill Specific Plan.
|
Type of Use |
Floor Area (square feet) |
Parking Ratio |
Number of spaces required |
|
|
|
|
|
|
General Retail |
3,300 |
3 / 1,000 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Required/Total Provided |
|
|
10/8 |
|
|
|
|
|
Safety
Sergeant Joshua Lindsay with the Rialto Police Department reviewed the project and did not have any objection to the establishment of the tattoo parlor, subject to the imposition of Conditions of Approval limiting the hours of operation, prohibiting services to intoxicated patrons, and prohibiting display of graphic imagery, to be incorporated into the resolution if the project is approved by the Planning Commission.
Conditional Development Permit Findings
A Conditional Development permit is intended to allow for the establishment of a certain use or business that could have a unique impact or effect on the surrounding area or surrounding businesses. The Conditional Development Permit provides the city with the means to review the location, design, configuration of uses, and potential impact and compatibility of the proposed use with that of the surrounding area. However, all findings contained in Section 18.66.020 of the RMC shall be justified in a positive manner prior to Planning Commission approval of the Conditional Development Permit. As documented below, planning staff concludes that the finding listed as “A, B, C, E and F” of the required findings in section 18.66.020 of the RMC cannot be justified for the Conditional Development Permit request.
Finding A. The proposed use and development are deemed essential or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the convenience or general well-being of the neighborhood or community.
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code §§ 65300 et seq., a Rialto City Planning Commission was created to adopt rules for the transaction of business and keep a public record of its transactions, resolutions, findings and determinations. The Planning Commission established a policy requiring all tattoo establishments to be separated by a minimum of three-quarter of a mile (3,960 feet) from similar establishment to provide adequate services to different areas in the community. The project site is within 800 feet of a similar tattoo establishment located at 245 W. Foothill Boulevard (Majestic Tattoo), which does not meet the separation criteria policy. The proposed tattoo parlor is not an essential service to the community, as an existing tattoo parlor located 800 feet west of the propose site, currently provides tattooing services to community on Foothill Boulevard.
Finding B. The proposed use and development will not be detrimental or injurious to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity.
To the south of the project site, across Foothill Boulevard is a commercial financial loan business. To the east is a Mexican restaurant. To the west is a hair salon within the same multi-tenant building. To the north across from the alley are single-family residences. The proposed use does not meet the minimum parking requirements, pursuant to Table 3.4 (Parking Standards) of the Foothill Specific Plan, so the surrounding uses and the existing single family residences to the north could be impacted. Having a parking deficit on the site could create circulation and parking issues, as employees or customers could utilize the alley and adjacent properties to park their vehicles, creating future problems for the surrounding neighborhood.
Finding C. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape, topography, accessibility and other physical characteristics to accommodate the proposed use and development in a manner compatible with existing land uses.
The Site is located within an existing multi-tenant commercial building with adequate access to Foothill Boulevard. The Site has thirteen (13) parking spaces, but only eight (8) spaces are accessible, while ten (10) parking spaces are required pursuant to Table 3.4 (Parking Standards) of the Foothill Specific Plan. The remaining five (5) parking spaces on the rear of the building, adjacent to the alley are non-accessible parking spaces, as an existing rolling chain-link fence blocks some of the parking spaces and an existing locked chain-link gate blocks the access to the front of the building. The project site does not have the adequate access to support the proposed use.
Finding D. The development site has adequate access to those utilities and other services required for the proposed use.
The Project will have adequate access to all utilities and services required through main water, electric, sewer, and other utility lines that are already hooked up to the Site.
Finding E. The proposed use will be arranged, designed, constructed and maintained so as it will not be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or otherwise be in harmonious with, the general plan of this city and its objectives, zoning ordinances or any applicable specific plan and its objectives.
The proposed use does not meet the parking requirements pursuant to Table 3.4 (Parking Standards) of the Foothill Specific Plan, as the parking spaces provided adjacent to the alley do not provide adequate access to the businesses.
Finding F. Any potential adverse effects upon the surrounding properties will be minimized to every extent practical and any remaining adverse effects shall be outweighed by the benefits conferred upon the community or neighborhood as a whole.
Granting of the Conditional Development Permit will set precedent that marginalizes the importance of the City’s policies and the development standards within the Foothill Specific Plan. Allowing the Conditional Development Permit will ultimately prevent the City from enforcing the same development standards and policies elsewhere in the area and in the same zoning district.
Conclusion
Because the proposed use is only 800 feet away from another tattoo parlor, the propose use does not comply with separation policy established by the Planning Commission requiring all tattoo establishments to be separated by a minimum of three-quarters of a mile (3,960 feet) from similar establishments to provide adequate services to different areas in the community (Exhibit E). The proposed use does not meet the parking requirements pursuant to Table 3.4 (Parking Standards) of the Foothill Specific Plan, as the parking spaces provided adjacent to the alley do not provide adequate access to the businesses. Five (5) of the six (6) required findings from Section 18.66.020 of the RMC cannot be justified and since there is no valid justification to grant the Conditional Development Permit, Planning staff recommends that the Conditional Development Permit request be denied.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The project is consistent with the following goal of the Economic Development Element of the Rialto General Plan:
Goal 3-1: Strengthen and diversify the economic base and employment opportunities, and maintain a positive business climate.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Planning staff recommends denial of the project, and therefore no environmental determination is necessary. However, if the Conditional Development Permit is granted, the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Section 15301, lists the proposed use as a Class I categorical exemption form CEQA which consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Public hearing notices for the proposed project were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site, and the public hearing notice was published in the San Bernardino Sun newspaper as required by State law.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
- Conduct the public hearing and receive public testimony; and
-
- Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-0040 subject to findings included therein; and
Upon the Planning Commission’s direction and decision to deny or grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2018-0040, staff will prepare a resolution for consideration at the next meeting.
1. Exhibit A - Location Map
2. Exhibit B - Site Plan
3. Exhibit C - Floor Plan
4. Exhibit D - Applicant’s Letter
5. Exhibit E - Notice to Applicant