HomeMy WebLinkAbout01. Staff ReportSTAFF REPORT
PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: May 1, 2024
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBMITTED/
REVIEWED BY: IRMA HUITRON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED BY: ALFONSO HERNANDEZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SITE PLAN REVIEW,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DENSITY BONUS REQUEST TO FACILITATE
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW 33-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (PLN-23-00035)
LOCATION: 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD (APN NO: 6358-015-058)
ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
SUMMARY
At the request of the applicant, the following item has been placed on the agenda for the Planning
Commission meeting of May 1, 2024. In accordance with Government Code section 65855, the
Planning Commission must take action on this particular type of item before the item may advance
to the City Council for consideration. The item was heard during the April 17, 2024 Planning
Commission Public Hearing, but the motion to approve did not carry with a 2-2 vote, meaning that
no action was taken on the item. The applicant requested that the item be reagendized at the
May 1, 2024 meeting. The item is not considered a continuance and is to be heard independently
of any other public hearing items associated with this application. Background information
regarding previous public comment and actions of the Planning Commission are presented in this
staff report and attachments as part of the body of evidence related to the application.
This is a request for a Site Plan Review (SPR) to construct a 33-unit residential condominium
townhome ownership development on a 1.35-acre site. The applicant’s requests include
consideration of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract
Map, and Density Bonus. The project proposes to change the General Plan land use designation
of the site to Medium Density Residential (MDR) and change its zoning classification to Multi-
Family Residential Ownership Zone (R-3-O). The project is proposed at a density of 20.6
units/gross acre, includes five (5) different unit designs, all with three (3) bedrooms located within
four (4) buildings. The maximum proposed height is thirty-six (36) feet, and no more than three
(3) stories. Vehicular access to the project will be provided via two (2) driveway entrances. The
primary entrance would be located at the northeastern corner of the project site off of Foster
Bridge Boulevard with a twenty-six (26) foot width and would be accessible by vehicles and
pedestrians while the driveway off of Suva Street be limited to westbound vehicular exit only. The
project is designed with private open space, landscaping, and walls and fences. This project was
previously scheduled for a public hearing on February 21, 2024, however that hearing was
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 2
continued at the request of the applicant. Staff will provide a presentation with a detailed overview
and analysis of the proposed project submitted by the applicant, The Olson Company, then a
presentation by the applicant will be provided, and followed by a public hearing. The Planning
Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
REQUESTS:
1. A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation from Low-Density Residential
(LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR)
2. A request to change the zone from Single-family Residential (R-1) to Multiple-family
Residential Ownership (R-3-O)
3. A request for a Site Plan Review for the proposed development’s architectural design, site
plan layout and configuration, circulation and landscaping and associated Density Bonus,
Concession and Waiver requests.
4. A request to subdivide the property for townhome purposes to construct a total of thirty-
three (33) residential ownership units, including thirty (30) market rate units and three (3)
affordable units (Tentative Tract Map No. 84168).
ENVIRONMENTAL:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Article 6 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Chapter 3.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-4027 RECOMMENDING
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE
CHANGE (PLN-23-00035), THEREBY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL AND CHANGE TO THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM R-1 (SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3-O (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
OWNERSHIP) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE
BOULEVARD AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH A MITIGATED
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
2. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-4028 RECOMMENDING
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE PLAN REVIEW (PLN-23-00035) AND
A DENSITY BONUS REQUEST THEREBY ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
33-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOME OWNERSHIP
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD
3. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-4029 RECOMMENDING
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 84168 (PLN-23-
00035) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD
(APN NO.: 6358-015-058)
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 3
PROJECT APPROVAL AUTHORITY:
• General Plan Amendment and Zone Change – Government Code Sections 65356 through
65355 and Section 65854 requires the Planning Commission to hold at least one (1) public
hearing before a recommendation on a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and a Zone
Change (ZC) to the City Council. Downey Municipal Code (DMC) Section 9834 authorizes
the City Council to consider GPAs and ZCs upon recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
• Site Plan Review – Downey Municipal Code (DMC) Section 9820 requires all new
structures and site improvements to be processed and heard by the Planning
Commission. Final action is forwarded to the City Council for concurrent consideration as
is required, per DMC Section 9802, when any portion of the application is at the discretion
of the City Council.
• Density Bonus Government Code Section 65915 allows the applicant to exceed the City’s
density, request Concessions, and development standard W aivers dependent upon the
level of affordability provided. Final action is forwarded to the City Council for concurrent
consideration.
• Subdivision/TTM – Government Code Sections 66452 and DMC Section 9922 requires
subdivisions creating five (5) or more parcels to undergo processes for a Tentative Tract
Map (TTM). The map must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Final
action is forwarded to the City Council for concurrent consideration.
BACKGROUND
Previous Actions
The application was previously heard by the Planning Commission at its regularly scheduled
meeting of April 17, 2024. After considering all evidence and testimony provided at the public
hearing, and following deliberation, a motion to approve the project failed with a 2-2 vote. A tie
vote results in no action being taken; it is neither an approval nor a rejection of the project. A
separate motion was made by Commissioner Morales to reduce the number of units to 24 and
remove a proposal for the use of tandem parking, but the motion was withdrawn. Therefore, with
the motion to approve resulting in a 2-2 tie vote, no recommendation to the City Council could be
made. Because no action was taken, the item can be considered again by the Planning
Commission. The project applicant has requested that the item be reagendized for consideration.
Under Government Code Section 65855, due to the legislative item being requested, a General
Plan Amendment and a Zone Change, the Planning Commission is required to take action on this
type of item before it proceeds to the City Council. On April 18, 2024, the project applicant
requested that the item be reagendized for the Planning Commission’s consideration at the May
1, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting (Attachment N).
Site and Location
The 1.35-acre project site is located in northwest Downey at the northwest corner of Foster Bridge
Boulevard, Suva Street, and South Bluff Road, adjacent to the Rio Hondo River to the south. The
City of Bell Gardens is located northwest of the site. The project site currently supports an
operating church (“TLG House”). The site is developed with one 8,480 square-foot building, which
was constructed in 1959. The building’s floor plan consists of a sanctuary, offices, and
classrooms, and since its construction the building has not had any major upgrades or alterations.
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 4
Surrounding uses include single family residential to the north, east, and southeast, a 28-unit
multi-family residential development to the south, and self-storage to the west. The project site is
located within the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone, and is designated as Low Density
Residential (LDR) by the City’s General Plan.
Figure A – Vicinity Map and Surrounding Uses
Figure B – Frontage at Intersection of Foster Bridge Boulevard and Bluff Road
DISCUSSION
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Under Government Code Section 65855, due to the involvement of a General Plan Amendment
and a Zone Change, a recommendation from the Planning Commission shall be made prior to
City of
Bell Gardens
Subject
Property
R-1
Single Family
Residences
R-1
Multi-family
Residences
R-1
Single Family
Residences
R-1
Self Storage
Facility
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 5
the item being forwarded to the City Council. The following describes the associated General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change request associated with this application.
The project includes a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning
designation for the property from the Low-Density Residential Land Use Designation with a
corresponding R-1 zone, to the Medium-Density Residential Land Use Designation with the
corresponding R-3-O zone, in order to facilitate the development of the proposed townhome
condominium ownership project.
Existing Proposed
Figure C – Zoning (Existing and Proposed)
Existing Proposed
Figure D – General Plan (Existing and Proposed)
The current R-1 zoning and corresponding General Plan designation only allows typically for the
development of detached single-family residential units at the maximum density of 8.9 housing
units per acre, or roughly equivalent to a maximum of one housing unit for a standards 5,000
square foot lot. The proposed R-3-O zoning and corresponding Low-Density Residential General
Plan Land Use Designation typically allows for a range of housing types that involves densities at
18 to 24 housing units per acre with a 1,815 square foot lot minimum per dwelling unit. The
proposed R-3-O zone would allow for the development of attached and detached townhouse
R-3-O
Medium
Density
Low
Density
Open
Space
General
Manufacturing General
Manufacturing
Low
Density
Open
Space
R-1
City of
Bell Gardens City of
Bell Gardens
City of
Bell Gardens
City of
Bell Gardens
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 6
design condominium developments, provided the overall density is not exceeded. The R-3-O
Zone is intended to provide for the development of ownership type housing in selected areas
compatible with the neighborhood environment. Such areas are envisioned as being located and
designed to be complementary to adjacent uses and providing sufficient opportunities for home
ownership.
General Plan Consistency
The Downey General Plan is the basis for all local land use decisions. State law requires zoning
and subdivisions to be consistent with the General Plan for approval. The purpose of the General
Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element, two of the seven (7) elements required of the
General Plan, is to address issues concerning the relationship between land uses and
environmental quality, potential hazards, and social and economic objectives. The Land Use
Element accompanied with the City’s recently adopted Housing Element constitutes the City’s
official policy for the location of various uses, particularly housing developments, to ensure the
City remains compliant with State Law and to ensure the orderly development of the City. A project
is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all aspects of the proposed project, the project
will further the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment.
As a part of meeting, the required findings listed in the Resolutions (Attachments F, G, and H),
must be supported with appropriate justification that the proposed project is consistent with the
overall General Plan. In staff’s assessment of the project, and as described in the Resolutions,
the policies and goals identified in the City’s recently adopted Housing Element Update are
consistent with the project proposal. In particular, the Housing Element states that the City’s role
is to facilitate the redevelopment of underutilized sites. This includes supporting the creation,
adoption, and implementation of General Plan policies, zoning, and development standards
and/or incentives to encourage the construction of various types of units. The proposed G eneral
Plan Amendment and Zone Change would fall under this description.
In addition, Housing Element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the
regional housing need as established in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) plan
prepared by the jurisdiction’s Council of Governments. The California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD), in conjunction with the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), determine a projected housing need for the region covered by SCAG. The
City of Downey has a RHNA of 6,525 housing units to accommodate in the current housing
element period of 2021 - 2029. The RHNA is further broken down into specific affordability
categories. The City is not obligated to build these units, instead the City is obligated for creating
the policy framework to facilitate the construction of these units by private or non-profit
developers.
The City has designated various sites throughout the City that can potentially accommodate the
City’s RHNA allocation of 6,525 units. This list of potential housing sites is known as the “sites
inventory.” These sites are to be either rezoned or included in new overlay zones to allow for
housing to be built on those sites. The City’s Housing Element Implementation Plan is currently
underway and is expected to conclude by Spring of 2025. The “sites inventory” includes
commercial properties located along Firestone Boulevard and Lakewood Avenue, among other
street segments, and other sites such as the Stonewood Mall and Downey Landing which are
located within Specific Plan areas. In addition, Planning procedures such as rezoning and General
Plan Amendments are included in the Housing Element’s list of potential actions that may be
taken to help facilitate the creation of housing units.
The proposed project, if approved, would reduce the RHNA obligation. However, it should be
noted that the subject property for this application is not included in the “sites inventory”, and the
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 7
City did not previously consider the site when planning where to accommodate the City’s 6,525
RHNA obligation. It is also important to note that if sites currently in the “sites inventory” elect to
not construct housing then the City is obligated to locate alternate potential sites to compensate
for the loss of units that could have been built on that site. This obligation is required per the
State’s “No Net Loss” law. Therefore, the project could potentially be considered to be included
in the “site inventory” at later time which would require a separate analysis and action by the
Planning Commission and the City Council. Within the current Housing Element period, 2021 –
2029, the City’s RHNA obligation of 6,525 has only been reduced by the creation of 17 market
rate housing units not including ADUs. Aside from the proposed project, the City has four (4) other
housing development applications currently under review. It should be noted that each of the four
(4) applications face individual development constraints such as narrow lots which pose site plan
layout challenges.
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO)
The proposed project would provide a total of three moderate income units as required per a
combination of DMC Article I Chapter 5 (Inclusionary Housing) and California Government Code
Section 65915 (Density Bonus). The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) was approved
by City Council on April 12, 2022 and the applicant’s proposal is the first housing project to be
considered under the City’s IHO. The IHO’s goal is to facilitate the construction of affordable
housing units by requiring that a share of the units built are constructed, or a fee is paid, at the
moderate affordability level. The amount of affordability units to be provided is calculated at a rate
of 10% the amount of proposed units, not including Density Bonus units. The standard only
applies, in the case of for-sale, to projects constructing ten (10) or more units. For this particular
application the IHO requirement is 3.1 and rounded up to a total of four (4) units to be provided at
moderate level affordability. However, via allowances provided per the State’s Density Bonus the
IHO unit requirement is reduced to 3.1 units. Further details regarding Density Bonus allowances
are provided in the following staff report section. Per the DMC, the applicant may elect to construct
the IHO units, pay an in-lieu fee, or a combination of both. The applicant has proposed to
construct three units and pay the fraction of .10 of a unit. The in-lieu fee amount to be paid is
$25,848.
Density Bonus
At the request of the applicant, the project is exercising Density Bonus rights afforded by
California’s Government Code Section 65915. This allows the applicant to construct an additional
three units, or 5%, on top of the 30-units allowed per the DMC’s R-3-O zone. Although the 5%
Density Bonus calculation results in an increase of two (2) units, the City’s baseline density of
30.82 must be rounded up per the state’s legislation allowing for the additional third unit.
Traditionally, the 30.82 density calculation would be rounded down to 30 units per the DMC.
In addition to the added units, the project is also allowed to include one Concession and various
Waivers from the DMC. Specifically, the project is allowed these rights because at least 10% of
the units are to be sold at moderate income levels. Concessions are allowed within the State’s
Density Bonus Law dependent upon the affordability level provided for the project. The applicant
is allowed to request only one Concession because they have elected to provide an affordability
level of “moderate-income” for the respective three (3) IHO units.
Concessions and Waivers
The one requested Concession is a deviation from DMC Section 1503(c) pertaining to the IHO.
The DMC details how to calculate the amount of required inclusionary housing units and the need
to round up to the next whole number when a calculation results in a fraction. The applicant has
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 8
requested a Concession to eliminate having to “round up”, and ultimately have the inclusionary
amount requirement end in a fraction. This fraction amount results in a need to provide 3.1
inclusionary units. Without the Concession this calculation would result in a need to provide four
(4) IHO units. Per the City’s IHO, the applicant may elect to construct, all or a portion, of the units
or pay an in-lieu fee, for all or a portion of the units. With the Concession, the applicant has elected
to construct three (3) IHO units and pay an in-lieu fee for the fractional amount of 10% of a unit,
which would be a total of $26,341.
The applicant has also requested seven (7) Waivers from the DMC. State Density Bonus law
allows for an unlimited amount of W aiver requests. Per Density Bonus law, W aivers to
development standards are limited to physical changes that would help better accommodate all
the allowed units on the site. For example, a reduction to setbacks may be necessary to
appropriately position a housing unit on the site. The requested W aivers are summarized below:
Table 1
Summary of Requested Density Bonus Waivers
DMC Requirement Deviation
Section 9144. Definition for
“Lot Area”
Density calculated using
the net lot size, which
does not include certain
easements.
Applicant has request that density
be calculated using gross lot size
resulting in an increased allowable
density.
DMC Section 9312.08(a)
Residential Zones Property
Development Standards
Setback Front Setback =15’ Ranges from 12.75’ to 14.25’
Setback Rear Setback = 46’ Reduced Rear Setback = 37.5’
Setback Side Setback = 10’ Reduced Sideyard Setback = 5’
Height Maximum Height = 35’
Increased Height = 37.5’
*Increased height varies for each
building, between 1’ to 2’-6”
DMC Section 9710.02
Parking - R-3-O Zone
Design Standards
Two-car garage with side
by side parking
Applicant has requested that 15 of
the 33 dwelling units (45%) be
designed with enclosed tandem
garage parking.
DMC Section
9312.08(b)(10) Usable
Open Space
Private open space
requires a 10’ x 10’
minimum dimension
Applicant has requested to provide
private open space in the form of
patios for Buildings 1, 2, and 4, and
in the form of balconies for units in
Building 3 with varying non-
conforming dimensions
The applicant also proposes to deviate from the DMC pursuant to the less restrictive minimum
mandatory parking standards allowed within the State’s Density Bonus Law. The Density Bonus
parking standards require a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per unit and no guest parking. The
applicant’s proposal exceeds the Density Bonus parking requirements by providing a total of two
spaces per unit and five guest parking spaces. A comparison table of the DMC, State Density
Bonus Law parking standards, and the applicant’s proposal for on-site parking is provided below.
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 9
Table 2
Parking Requirements
DMC Requirement Density Bonus Law Proposed
Section 9708.
Residential
Off-Street
Parking
Requirements.
2.0 covered spaces
within a garage; plus
0.5 guest parking
space per unit
(Total: 83 spaces)
1.5 parking spaces per
unit
(Total: 49.5 spaces)
66 covered with each unit
having a cover two car
garage; 5 guest parking
spaces
(Total: 71 spaces)
*Exceeds Density Bonus
minimum parking standards
Site Plan Review
The Site Plan Review examines the proposed site changes, landscaping, and compliance with
the Downey Municipal Code. The project includes the construction of 33 dwelling units. The
proposed units will be located within four separate three-story buildings, with dwelling units
ranging from 1,188 square feet to 1,792 square feet. Each dwelling unit will also include a two-
car garage, and either a private patio or balcony.
The project will also include 7,766 square feet of landscape area, 26’ wide drive-aisles, and five
guest parking spaces (71 parking spaces overall). A copy of the proposed plans are attached as
Attachment C. A summary of the unit details is provided in the table below.
Table 3
Project Components
Unit
Breakdown Unit Sizes Number of Bedrooms
3 units 1,188sf 3bd/3ba
12 units 1,477sf 3bed/3ba
5 units 1,600sf 3bed/2.5ba
10 units 1,657sf 3bed/3.5ba
3 units 1,792sf 3bed/3.5ba
Total Units 33
Ingress/Egress
Two (2) total driveways:
• one (1) along Suva Street (exit only, right turn out/west) and
• one (1) along Foster Bridge Road (both entry and exit)1
Note #1. A Condition of approval was added to Resolution No. 24-4025 to provide the
installation of street markings indicating “Keep Clear” in front of the Foster Bridge Boulevard
driveway entrance on the Southbound traffic lane.
Various applicable development standards are summarized in Table 4:
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 10
Table 4 – Development Standards
Standard Zoning Code Standards Proposed Compliance
Lot Coverage 50% 41.77% Yes
Building Height 35 ft. / 3 stories 37.5 ft. / 3 stories No (Waiver)
Setbacks:
Front
Rear (3 story building
abutting an R-1)
Street Side
Side
15 ft. Min.
46 ft. Min.
7.5 ft. Min.
10 ft. Min.
12.75 ft.
37 ft. 6 in.
7.5 ft.
5 ft.
No (Waiver)
No (Waiver)
Yes (Waiver)
No (Waiver)
Architecture
The architectural style inspiration for the project is Spanish style. All buildings are designed to be
consistent with one another in terms of architectural treatment, materials, color, and interior
layout. The units fronting the street are designed to be oriented towards Foster Bridge Road and
Suva Street, and the other units are oriented to the interior of the lot. The building materials include
sand stucco siding painted white with wood like cement board accents selectively placed along
the front elevations. Additional architectural features include exposed rafter tails, corbel trims
around the windows, and traditional tile venting. Lastly, the roofing material will be clay tile.
Front Elevation (Foster Bridge Blvd.)
Front Elevation (Suva St.)
Figure E – Project Colored Elevations
Tract Map No. 84168
A Tentative Tract Map (TTM) is the corresponding subdivision application required for the creation
of condominium developments consisting of five (5) or more units. The tract map defines the
boundaries of common spaces and privately-owned airspace. Common spaces include the 26’
driveway and 20’ drive aisles throughout the site, common landscaped areas, paths, and guest
parking areas. The private airspace areas outline the individual parcels that will be sold separately
to individual parties. Each of these airspaces will be assigned an independent Assessor’s Parcel
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 11
Number. The proposed placement of these airspace areas is deemed permanent and may not be
modified at an administrative level. Modifications to the proposal would require submittal of a new
map and approval from the Planning Commission. The TTM is attached as Exhibit B of
Attachment H.
As required per the Subdivision Map Act, the TTM was provided to the Downey Unified School
District, Caltrans, and the Central Basin Municipal Water District in order to allow these agencies
the opportunity to comment on the proposed map. None of the agencies provided comments.
Park and Recreation Areas and Facilities (Quimby Act)
Per the City’s Open Space Element of the General Plan and DMC Section 9931.8 as allowed by
the Quimby Act, a subdivider shall dedicate a portion of land, or pay a fee, for the purposes of
providing park and recreation facilities to serve future residents of such subdivisions. If the
applicant were to elect to dedicate land, a total of 9,900 square feet would be required.
Alternatively, these requirements may be met by providing sufficient amounts of open space on
site via the DMC’s Credit for Private Open Space. However, the project does not propose open
space and is requesting Density Bonus W aivers from providing such space as explained in the
Density Bonus section. Therefore, the applicant has elected to pay an in-lieu fee. The purpose of
the in-lieu fee is to collect funds for the City to later create and expand park lands or rehabilitate
existing park and recreation facilities. The total applicable in-lieu (Quimby Act) fee for the 33-unit
project is $34,264.56.
Traffic Analysis
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted for the project to analyze both existing conditions
and potential traffic impacts. Regarding existing conditions, the TIA finds the intersections and
street segments that will primarily serve the project to score Level of Service (LOS) grades of
“acceptable” at a C or better, with the exception of the Suva and Guatemala intersection. The
Suva and Guatemala intersection scores LOS grades at peak periods ranging from “acceptable”,
grade D, to “approaches capacity”, grade E. These intersection and street segments along with
their LOS are listed below. In addition, public comment, as summarized in the public comments
section of this report and in Attachment K, indicate traffic congestion at greater levels than
indicated in the TIA. Staff recently observed that existing conditions resembled what is indicated
in the TIA.
However, Staff finds through the TIA that the project is not forecasted to alter the current LOS of
any of the intersections or street segments. Furthermore, the TIA indicates a minimal increase in
trip generation coming and going to the site. Staff ultimately finds that the traffic conditions are a
result of preexisting conditions specific to the nearby area and not a result of the project proposal.
Therefore, Staff is unable to deem the project will create or significantly contribute as a major
impact to the nearby area.
Figure F - Existing Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis
Notes:
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 12
(1) See Table 1.
(2) The County of Los Angeles roadway maximum capacity at Level of Service "E" (see Table 1).
(3) ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume.
(4) V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio.
(5) LOS = Level of Service (Based on the Level of Service standards on Table 1).
Figure G - Existing Intersection Level of Service
Notes:
(1) AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal
(2) Delay is shown in seconds/vehicle. For intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control, overall average intersection
delay and LOS are shown.
(3) LOS = Level of Service
Aside for LOS, the site will generate a total daily net increase of 158 trips, with an additional 10
trips at AM peak times and 13 additional trips at PM peak times. This means within any 15-minute
interval between the hours of 7am and 9am (for AM peak periods) the highest expected traffic
volume will be 10 additional vehicles entering or existing the site and between 4pm and 6pm (for
PM peak periods) a maximum of an additional 13 vehicles would be the highest volume entering
or exiting the site. All other 15-minute intervals between those times would be less than the
estimated peak trips.
Considering the potential increase of traffic during peak times, as well as concerns expressed
regarding there being heavier traffic than what was indicated in the TIA, Public Works Department
Staff will adjust the timing of the traffic signal at Suva Street and Bluff Road/Foster Bridge
Boulevard to accommodate clearing up to an additional 14 vehicles from the queue during any
single cycle of the signal beginning on April 15, 2024. The Public Work Department will evaluate
the timing of the signal and re-adjust, as needed, to ensure that traffic flow is optimized. In
addition to the adjustment to the timing, the traffic signal at Suva Street and Bluff Road/Foster
Bridge Boulevard is in the City’s plan over the next two to five years for full upgrade to the signal
poles, traffic and pedestrian signal heads, safety lights, controls, and equipment cabinet. The new
traffic signal and equipment would result in better operations and fewer maintenance call-outs to
replace parts. In addition, a new traffic signal will provide an upgrade to safety with larger, more
visible traffic and pedestrian signal heads, and improved signal and safety lighting for pedestrian
and vehicular traffic.
Condition No. 74 (Attachment G-Exhibit A) has been included to alleviate potential southbound
queuing at the Foster Bridge Boulevard and Bluff Road Intersection, which will require a revision
to the attached plans. As initially presented by the applicant, the project driveway along Suva
Street was proposed for emergency vehicles only. With staff’s proposed condition of approval,
the driveway will now also serve northbound right turn exits only as well. The exit only will now
alleviate approximately 30% of traffic exiting the site away from the Foster Bridge Boulevard and
Bluff Road intersection.
In addition to the TIA, Staff also looked at data collected from the City’s Traffic Calming Program.
The program was adopted in 2010 and is intended to layout steps for addressing traffic calming
requests and complaints. The steps include the following: (1) Traffic calming request is submitted
to the City, (2) Petition prepared and sent to requestor, (3) Stage 1 traffic calming study performed,
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 13
(4) Stage 1 traffic calming measure(s) implemented as appropriate, (5) Follow-up evaluation,
(6)Conduct Stage 2 traffic calming study (if issue was not resolved), and (7) City Council approval
(if necessary) and implement Stage 2 traffic calming measure. The data generated helps inform
Staff of potential improvements that can be made to alleviate the existing conditions.
With regard to nearby intersections and street segments, the City’s Public Works Committee met
on March 21, 2024 to discuss the Traffic Calming Program in general (Attachment I) as well as
touched on the potential measures to traffic infrastructure on Suva Street and Guatemala Avenue.
One point of interest was speeding that occurs on these street segments. Potential remediations
include Stage 1 traffic calming measures, such as signs and pavement markings, and Stage 2
traffic calming measures, such as speed humps and bulb-outs. Following completion of traffic
studies for the addition of speed humps on Guatemala Avenue between Lubec Street and
Coolgrove Drive, Staff is currently preparing petitions to be circulated to residents along this
stretch for support of a speed hump installation project. If the project has adequate support from
the residents (75%), the project would proceed as a capital improvement project to take place
between July 2024 and February 2025. Traffic issues burdening these street segments are not
directly, or entirely a result, of the proposed project therefore any necessary modifications are
taken on by the City.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Development Review Committee (DRC) discussed and evaluated the project as it pertains
to Planning, Police, Fire, Public Works, and Building and Safet y matters. Each Department or
Division evaluated the project and provided conditions of approval in the attached Resolution No.
4025 to ensure the site design features and project have the least impacts to the surrounding
community while ensuring that the project meets current municipal code requirements.
PUBLIC INPUT
Public Notices: On April 18, 2024, a public hearing notice was distributed following the exact
procedures outlined below, mirroring the format of separate public hearing notices previously
distributed and associated with the application.
A public hearing notice was published in the Downey Patriot and was mailed to all tenants and
property owners within 500 feet of the subject property (Attachment J). The DMC only requires
that property owners be notified, but Staff also provided notification of the public hearing to the
addresses located within 500-feet of the project site. Notification was also sent to all interested
parties that previously provided their contact information, as well as outside agencies. Staff
recommended to the applicant that they install a sign on the property advising the nearby
community of the upcoming public hearing, however the applicant opted not to install the sign.
On April 4, 2024, the project was separately noticed as an independent public hearing for the April
17, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Noticing procedure are identical to the procedures stated
above.
In addition, on April 23, 2024, City staff installed five (5), 24-inch by 36-inch poster board signs
printed with a copy of the May 1, 2024 Planning Commission public hearing notice. City staff
understands that the public has previously expressed concerns regarding the notification of any
public hearings regarding the proposed project, and as such the posting of the signs at the project
site and nearby area was completed with a ten-day advance notice of the scheduled hearing.
Three of those signs were posted at each side of the project site (Suva Street, Bluff Road, and
Foster Bridge Blvd) with the consent of the on-site’s pastor, and two other signs were posted in
parkway areas, at the entry points of the Treasure Island neighborhood (Attachment J).
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 14
On April 7, 2024, City Staff installed signs on and nearby the subject property in the same manner
stated above. The signs were printed with a copy of the April 17, 2024 Planning Commission
public hearing notice.
Community Outreach: City staff encouraged the applicant to conduct community outreach,
including a community meeting, while City staff conducted its evaluation of the project. The
applicant verbally communicated to staff that their preferred option would be door-to-door visits
to meet and inform residents of the proposed project. Staff received several calls from concerned
residents of the Treasure Island neighborhood. Staff again encouraged the applicant to conduct
a community outreach meeting so that the neighborhood could learn more about the proposed
design and layout of the project while staff was still evaluating the project. The applicant informed
City staff verbally several times that a community meeting was not their preferred option for
conducting outreach and that they would continue with the door-to-door outreach approach. After
the March 6, 2024 continued Planning Commission public hearing, staff once again met with the
applicant to encourage them to host a community meeting to listen and potentially address the
community concerns. In late March 2024, the applicant informed staff that the Olson Company
(the applicant) held a community meeting at a community center located in the City of Bell
Gardens and that several community members voiced concerns regarding the project. Despite
requests by City staff, a written summary of the concerns has not been provided to staff. A copy
of the community meeting invitation is attached in Attachment O Exhibit A - Items submitted into
the Record at Planning Commission April 17, 2024 Meeting.
Public Comments: As of the preparation of this report, staff received written correspondence
from three individuals stating opposition to the project due to concerns related to impacts to
privacy, traffic, and street parking. A copy of the previous public comments is included in
Attachment K. In addition to written comments, a total of 18 individuals either previously provided
public comment at a past Planning Commission meeting or shared their thoughts directly with
Staff. A general summary of the public comments/concerns received to date are provided below.
In Opposition
• Traffic concerns
• Cleanliness of Treasure Island Park
• Project is incompatible with single family housing,
• Project should be built elsewhere
• There is better utilization of the site (i.e. parks and recreation)
• Parking congestion, especially for guests due to potential special occasions hosted
at townhomes
• Lack of parking to accommodate each unit
• Current dangers for pedestrians due to existing traffic conditions including speeding
when streets are not congested
• Health concerns related to added vehicle congestion
• Believes traffic study misrepresents actual traffic conditions
• Density and over development of the site
• Garage use for storage is difficult to enforce
• Sense of community lost with loss of church
• Misrepresentations provided from applicant when canvasing area
• Over population in the area
• School enrollment/overcrowding
• Will alter quality of life
• The Treasure Island neighborhood has historical significance
• Current traffic conditions impact people exiting their homes
• Will potentially negatively affect property values
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 15
• Congestion makes it difficult for first responders to access the area
In Favor
• Development of site would eliminate vagrant activity
• Activate the site
• May potentially raise nearby property values
• Provide younger and those in need with affordable housing
• Will raise the housing stock
In addition, the City of Bell Gardens staff verbally expressed concerns, in January 2024, regarding
the potential impacts of the project. City staff requested that a written summary be provided for
further evaluation. The City received a comment letter from Bell Gardens on April 16, 2024. The
letter is added to the additional public comment letters found in Attachment P. The letter requests
copies of utility “will serve” letters and notification if hazardous materials are found on site. In
addition, the letter requested that a traffic impact analysis study existing and future traffic impacts,
measure Level of Service, and impacts to the intersection of Suva St./Foster Bridge Blvd./ Bluff
Road. A response is provided by staff and found as Attachment Q, and notes that the traffic impact
analysis covers the items presented by the City of Bell Gardens.
On April 16, 2024 and April 17, 2024, the City received an email regarding a petition opposing the
project with 283 of signatures included. The email and petition are attached as Attachment P.
Lastly, the applicant at the public hearing provided 162 letters of support for the project. The letters
were not previously provided to Staff, and many are identical to one another with different
signatures provided. The letters are found in Attachment O Exhibit B – Items submitted into the
Record at Planning Commission April 17, 2024 Meeting.
Alternative Housing Development Scenarios
The applicant has provided Attachment L, which includes a cover letter and attachment letter
detailing the applicant’s analysis of what they believe are the residential development rights of
the property under its current land use and zoning designation. The applicant indicated that their
intent in providing such information is to demonstrate that the applicant’s proposed project is
consistent with the residential density currently permitted by-right under State Density Bonus and
Accessory Development Unit law. The City commissioned an independent peer review of the
applicant’s letters and associated analyses which are included as Attachment M. This information
is being provided to the Planning Commission to ensure the Commission has the background
necessary to deliberate on the General Plan Land Use Designation change requested by the
applicant. The City-initiated peer review memo (Attachment M) provides an analysis of the
development scenarios utilizing the application of R-1 zoning, State Density Bonus law and
provisions related to allowable accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units which
would render a total of 39 dwelling units. The peer review memo further describes development
scenarios using SB9 or SB4 provisions, if the low-density land use designation and single-family
(R-1) zoning would remained unchanged.
The applicant also provided within Attachment L, a summary that describes the potential
development of the site using SB 4 provisions. The City’s commissioned peer review memo
summarizes that such development would require that the project meet very specific criteria
regarding the provision of a very high percentage of housing unit affordability levels and the
applicability of prevailing wages requirements.
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 16
The Planning Commission has been provided with three Resolutions (Attachments F, G, and H)
for consideration which describes the merits of the project being proposed, with the applicant’s
request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone change to allow a medium density project
(MDR) land use designation with the corresponding zone (R-3-O). For clarity, the applicant’s
proposal does not include a proposal to develop the site utilizing R-1 or low-density standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) was prepared and made available for a thirty (30) day public review period November 22,
2023 to December 22, 2023. The following comments were submitted to the City of Downey
during the public review period:
1. Patricia Horsley – Environmental Planner, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts,
December 13, 2023
2. Lourdes Almazan – Glencliff Drive Resident, November 28, 2023
A copy of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP), and Comments/Response to Comments and errata are attached as Exhibit A
of Attachment E.
The public comments and responses are available for decision-makers for their review and
consideration prior to making their decision whether to approve the proposed project. Although
the State Guidelines Section 15088 does not require a City to prepare writt en responses to the
comments received, the City elected to prepare written responses with the intent of providing a
comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed project.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines:
• None of the comments provide substantial evidence that the Project will have significant
environmental effects which would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
• None of the information in the letters or responses constitute the type of significant new
information that requires recirculation of the MND for further public review under State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to
Adoption.
• None of this new material indicates that the Project will result in a significant new
environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Project MND.
• None of this information indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity
of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there
would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15073.5.
The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration found potentially significant impacts of (1) Aesthetics (2)
Biological Resources (3) Cultural Resources (4) Geology and Soils (5) Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, (6) Noise and (6) Tribal Cultural Resources. However, no impacts would be generated
as they relate to greenhouse gases, land use/planning, population/housing, traffic, agriculture,
mineral resources, public services/recreation, utilities, air quality, water quality, and wildfires.
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would be
no significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been prepared a nd
incorporated into Resolution No. 24-4024. An MND was prepared and with the inclusion of the
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 17
proposed mitigation measures as described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) adverse impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible and below a level of
significance.
Tribal Consultation
The IS/MND included a preliminary draft historical/archaeological resources survey memorandum
as Appendix C-1. This report was considered preliminary as it did not contain a formal written
response from the State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) regarding cultural
resources listed in their archives. However, the City did receive extensive information on local
archaeological/Native American tribal resources from Gabrieleno tribal representatives during the
City’s Native American Consultation Process per SB 18 and AB 52, as outlined in Sections 4.5
and 4.18 of the IS/MND. On December 6, 2023, Appendix C-1 was revised to include a final
historical/archaeological resources survey report which included NAHC archival information. This
additional information supports the analysis and conclusions in the IS/MND that the site and
immediate surrounding area do not contain identified historical or cultural resources or artifacts.
However, information from local tribal representatives still indicates Native American tribal
resources may be present in the project area. Therefore, the IS/MND recommended Mitigation
Measures CUL-1 to retain a project archaeologist and TCR-1 through TCR-3 as recommended
by the Gabrieleno tribe in their consultation with the City to address tribal monitoring of grading,
disposition of unanticipated resources during grading, and treating human remains if found during
grading. The additional information in the revised Appendix C-1 does not change the analysis,
conclusions, or mitigation in the IS/MND.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission is advised to listen to staff’s and the applicant’s presentations, open
the public hearing, take public testimony, and deliberate on the merits of the proposed project and
staff’s analysis as further described in the three Resolutions (No.24-1024, 24-4025, 24-4026). As
proposed and with staff’s recommended conditions of approval, the project complies with the
goals, policies, and programs outlined in the City’s General Plan and Housing Element. Findings
to support the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, and Tentative Tract
Map (PLN-23-00035) have been included in the Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 24-4024,
24-4025, and 24-4026. Furthermore, staff is concluding that all findings required for a
recommendation of approval can be made in a positive manner. As such, staff is recommending
that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the application (PLN-23-
00035). The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for
consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Colored Renderings
C. Submitted Project Plans dated April 17, 2024
D. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
E. CEQA Documents
• Exhibit A - Response to comments/Final MND Memo- Addendum Materials
• Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
• Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
• Exhibit C - Appendices
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035
May 1, 2024 - Page 18
• (Location:
https://lf.downeyca.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1006877&dbid=0&repo=Dow
ney)
F. Draft Resolution No. 24-4024 – General Plan Amendment (GP) and Zone Change (ZC)
• Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval
• Exhibit B – Existing and Proposed Zoning Designation
• Exhibit C – Existing and Proposed General Plan Designation
• Exhibit D – Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
G. Draft Resolution No. 24-4025 – Site Plan Review and Density Bonus
• Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
H. Draft Resolution No. 24-4026 – Tentative Tract Map No. 84168
• Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
• Exhibit B – Tentative Tract Map No. 84168
I. Traffic Calming Program PW Committee Report March 21, 2024
J. Public Noticing
K. Public Comments
L. Applicant’s (Olson Co.) Density, R-1, and SB 4 Information
M. Peer Review Memo - Density, R-1, SB 9, SB 4 Analysis
N. Applicant’s Request to Re-agendize Project for May 1, 2024 Planning Commission
Meeting
O. Items submitted into the Record at Planning Commission April 17, 2024 Meeting
• Exhibit A – Olson Company Community Meeting Invitation
• Exhibit B – Letters of Support Submitted by the Olson Company
P. Correspondence Submitted after April 12, 2024
Q. Staff Response to Comments provided by City of Bell Gardens