HomeMy WebLinkAbout01A. CC Density Bonus VerizonBACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
AGENDA MEMO
APPROVED BY
CITY MANAGER
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
CITY OF DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA
I'ATE: November 9, 2010
, .., ..
'''fit •■*"., f
I
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A DENSITY BONUS A PLI 1
r,--t ,.- .:-::' -
-_ OR THE
VIEW HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT 83 4 2 -
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt:
FROM: Office of the City Manager By: Brian Saeki, Director of Community Develo
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP
DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION NO. 09-72 FOR THE VIE
LOCATED AT 8314 2 STREET AND ZONED DOWNTO
PLAN
l i
DOWNEY APPROVING
HOUSING PROJECT,
1 DOWNEY SPECIFIC
At the Downey Planning Commission meeting of October 20, 2010, planning
commissioners adopted the two resolutions listed below for tIe development of a 6-
story, 50-unit multifamily residential project ("The View"). Thq project is slated for a
22,540 square-foot site, which encompasses the former Verilion building at 8314 2
Street, and the adjacent public parking lot to the west. The si =a is located on the south
side of 2 Street, about a half block east of Downey Avenue ! The developer of the
project is National Community Renaissance of California ("Naitional Core").
• Resolution No. 10-2678 (Site Plan Review ApplicationNo. 09-71) approved the
design and onsite improvements of the six-story, 50-ui;it multifamily project.
• Resolution No.10-2679 (Density Bonus Application Na. 09-72) recommends the
City Council approve the density bonus application forl11 dwelling units and tow
regulatory concessions.
The View offers 35 two-bedroom units ranging from 795 to 8(3 square feet, and 15
three-bedroom units each measuring 1,002 square feet. Therirst floor of The View
includes the 2 Street entrance and lobby, a 1,500 square-fojt community room, and
parking. The 2 3 and 4 floors each contain 11 units, whi the 5 and 6 floors will
contain nine and eight units, respectively. The View provides j 1,370 square feet of
open space, including a podium/second-level courtyard, a roc op garden, and a private
patio for each dwelling unit. The View has 100 parking spaceI to be located on the
PAGE 2 — DENSITY BONUS APP. — 1 1 /9/1 0
surface level and the subterranean level of the project; acceJ to the first and second
levels of parking is from 2 Street. The Downtown Downey pecific Plan requires the
project to have 75 parking spaces, and The View will utilize il; 25 additional parking
spaces as guest parking.
The View provides several landscape amenities including rai ed planters and plant-
covered exterior walls that will be featured along the building t; ground level. Raised
planters will edge all four sides of the building and a green w11 system will be applied to
the first story's elevations in eight-foot high sections.
The residential units at The View will generally be rented to families having household
sizes from four to six people. The bulk of the units (37) will bk.-t rented to households
making between $40,000 and $60,000 per year. National Co, in its role as property
manager, will carry out the leasing process; this process includes background checks
and certification of household incomes. National Core is also; to re-certify all
residents on an annual basis. CDC staff and National Core MI work together, to the
extent allowable by law, to give priority to Downey residents. ihe View will have 55-year
covenants recorded against the property to ensure that all urOs remain affordable to
qualified households.
Density Bonus Application No. 09-72 consists of two parts: 1 I a request for a density
bonus of 11 units; and 2) one concession. The project site is the Firestone Gateway
District of the Downtown Downey Specific Plan area, where the maximum density is 75
dwelling units per acre. The density of the proposed 50-unit roject, by comparison, is
96 dwelling units per acre, so to comply with the required 75 swelling units per acre
would mean paring the project to 39 units. However, the applicant has stated that
reducing the size of the project is financially infeasible due aii unfunded affordability
gap. Further, because 98% of the project's units are designatd for income-restricted
households, the project is entitled to a 35% density bonus, w=ich converts into a
maximum allowable density of 101 dwelling units/acre for theroject site (1.35 x 75
=101.25). Thus, the requested bonus application will permit tl e development's 96
dwelling units per acre.
The density bonus application also includes a request for a c ncession from the
Downtown Downey Specific Plan development standards. TI4s concession is allowed
for affordable housing and can be a reduction in a developm4it standard or modification
of an architectural design requirement. The concession shop shoi4d be necessary to
facilitate construction of affordable residential units. Corresp-ndingly, Section 9152 of
the Downey Zoning Code indicates that an applicant is entitle:I to two (2) concessions
when at least 10% of a project's units are designated for inco;ne-restricted households.
The concession requested is to allow the National Core to delelop 25% of the project's
parking spaces as compact stalls; 15% is the maximum perrr4tted compact stalls
pursuant to the Downtown Downey Specific Plan. Absent the oncession, the applicant
PAGE 3 — DENSITY BONUS APP. — 11/9/10
would have to provide another level of subterranean parking, w'lich is render the project
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this item will have no financial impact.
ATTACHMENTS: Cty Council Resolution
Planning Commission Minutes — 10/20/10
Panning Commission Staff Report — 10/20/10
Planning Commission Resolution No, 10'2878
Planning Commission Resolution No. 10'2878
1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFD
DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION NO. 09-72 FOR THE VIE
��
. STREET, ZONED DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY HEREBY
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, Alfredo lzmajtovich of National Community Rena
(National CORE), the Applicant, filed Density Bonus Application No.
one (1) regulatory concession for the View Housing (the Project), |oc
Assessor Parcel Numbers 6254-020-902 and 6254-020-914. The pr
story, multi-family development designated for income-restricted hou
for a density bonus of eleven (11) that will enable the development o
family project; and
WNEY APPROVING
HOUSING AT 8314
ESOLVES AS
sance of California
9-72, that also included
ted at 8314 2 Street,
posed Project is a six-
eholds and the request is
the proposed 50-unit
WN�Ri����, �heAop|icar�a|eo0ed8dePkan/�evievvAp onNo�OS-71 �SPRNo.
09-71) in conjunction with Density Bonus Application No. 08-72. ��P No. 08-71 is a request to
consider the p ject'udeoignandonaiteinnppovernenta;end '
WHEREAS, Density Bonus Application No. 09-72 also includ s a request for a regulatory
concession hz develop 2596uf project's parkingepooeaasconnpact alls, instead of1596,which
is the maximum prescribed by the Downtown Specific PIan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing n October 20, 10, to
hear id evidence for d against Density Bonus |uad after
considering the staif report, and hearing testimony from the applicanjand members of the
public, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-2079 r commending the City
Council approve Density Bonus Application No. 09-72; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the proposed density i
concession in the context of Gen l Plan goals and policies, U
utiUties, neighborhood compatibility and site development, and after
and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at sai
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines:
1. The proposed density increase is consistent with the eneral Plan in that it
implements the following goals and policies of the pla
Goal 2: Encourage a variety of housing types
1
crease and reguJatory
lity of public services and
ue investigation, and study,
hearing; and
d adequate supply of
housing to meet the existing and futur needs of city residents.
Policy 2.1: Provide adequate sites and zoning to courage and facilitate a
range of housing to address the reior ir share allocations.
Policy 2.2: Encourage infill development and recy ling of land to provide
adequate residential sites.
Policy 2.5: Assist private and nonprofit develope affordable
housing to low income residents and seciaI needs groups.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE TWO
Goal 3:
Policy 3.1:
|
Expand and protect housing oppodun��" for all economic
aegnnentmandopecia|houoingnmedool the community.
Use public financial resources, as feasi | to support the
provision of housing for lower income husehoIds and special
needs groups. N
Goal 4: Reduce the impact of potential govern ental constraints on the
rnainhsnance, innpnovennent, and pnodu ion of housing.
Policy 4.3: Uh|izedenodvbonumea.feereducUonm r other regulatory il
incentives to minimize the effect of gov rnnnerka| constraints.
Policy 4.4: Utiize the Redevelopment Agency as tooI to provide sites and
assist in the development of affordableriousing.
2. The proposed project will provide 49 income-restrictedapartments and one (1)
manager's unit that is not income-restricted,
3. The units will be income-restricted for no Iess than 55 'ears with several
affordability covenants recorded as Iiens on the propeLy; the project's
funding sources require that affordability restrictions b-7 recorded as part oftheir
financing.
4. Community facilities are adequate to serve the pnopo.2.d project. 5choo|o, public
facilities and public transit are located within walking cistance of the project site.
���"" � �
Ud|�eoare available and adequate ho serve the pnop`pro/ecL
5. The app!(cation's proposed density increase and relat concession request wiJJ
not have an adverse impact on surrounding prop i and the proposal is
compatible with the uses occupying neighboring prop rties.
6. The proposed p ject provides a community room an
courtyard with a tot lot and other onsite amenities for
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds and determines:
2
an onsite garden,
ture residents.
1. The application is eligible for a density bonus and anyzoncessions requested;
conforms to all standards for affordability included in fgection 9152; and includes
a financing mechanism for all implementation and moiitoring costs. Under the
Density Bonus Ordinance, the application is eligible fc-= both the requested
density bonus and concession due to the number of i come-restricted units
proposed. Specifically, 98% or 49 are income-restric d. With this percentage,
the project is eligible for the maximum bonus under t Ordinance, 35%, as well
as the requested concession: developing 25% of the arking spaces as compact
stalls. The project is funded by several public and pri ate sources, including
redevelopment housing set-aside funds. Current stat law requires that any multi-
family and for-rent project to be funded by redevelop ent housing set-aside
dollars must remain affordable to low income and ve low income households for
1
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE THREE
55 years. This affordability will be governed by a regcatory agreement for the
project and affordability covenants will be recorded ag4inst the project's property.
2. Any requested incentive or concession wilI result in id
sufficient, and actual cost reductions based on appro
documentation as described in Section 9512.22. The
develop 25% of the parking stalls as compact spaces
affordability gap. If the City of Downey does not grant
the pr ject would have to provide another level of sub
lUfiabk».finanoia|k/
iabe financial analysis and
equested concession to
�e|pobridge the p jeoyo
he requested concession,
rranean parking to satisfy
required parking. However, a second level of subterrEiean parking 15
prohibitively expensive. Therefore, the absence of a :oncession will render the
project infeasible.
WHEREAS, State Density Bonus Law 6 91 i that er
meets certain criteria for a density bonus, the local jurisdiction must ant regulatory
concessions (unless the city makes a written finding that the conce or incentives are not
required in order to provide for affordable housing costs as defined b state law); and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is requesting a regulatory c ncession: 1) permit the
applicant to develop 25% of the project's parking spaces as compac paces instead of 15%,
which is the maximum permitted under the Downtown Specific Plan; nd
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Counciof the City of Downey
approves Density Bonus Application No. 09-72, an eleven (11) unit dtInsity bonus over the
otherwise allowed density, for a total of 50 units at 96 units per acre, ;Ind one (1) concession for
the View Housing, located at 8314 2 nd G1/eet, more specifically deocrbed as Assessor Parcel
Numbers 6254-020-902 and 914.
ATTEST:
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk
3
ANNE M. BAYE1
010.
Mayor
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE FOUR
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adoptd by the City Council of
the City of Downey at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2010, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Member:
ABSENT: Council Member:
ABSTAIN: Council Member:
4
KATHLEEN L. TV DSTOKKE, City Clerk
City Clerk
Page 6
It was moved by Commissioner Kiefer, seconded by Commissioner Lambros and passed by a 4-0-1
vote, with Commissioner Murray abstaining, to adopt Resolution No. 10-2677, removing Conditions #2
and #3.
Commissioner Murray returned to the dais.
6. SITE PLAN REVIEW No. 09-71 AND DENSITY BONUS APPLcATION No. 09-72
Location: 8314 2 Street
Owner/Applicant: Community Development Commission
Authorized Agent: National Community Renaissance (National CORE)
Staff: Mark Sellheim
CEQA: As required by the California Environmenta Act (CEQA), this request
has been found to be Categorically Exempt5rom CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exempt n).
Requests: Site Plan Review — a request to develop a x-story, 50-unit multi-family
apartment project, consisting of Option 1 arJ Option 2; and
Density Bonus application - a request to grnt the project a density bonus of
ts
eleven (11) units, on property zoned Downwn Specific Plan.
Commissioner Vasquez stated that, although he has no economic interist in this item and is no longer
employed by the applicant, he would recuse himself from this item. Co l imissioner Vasquez stepped away
from the dais and left the Chambers.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing for Site Plan Review No. 9-71 and Density Bonus Application
No. 09-72. Ms. Donahue affirmed proof of publication.
Mark Sellheim, Principal Planner, presented staff's report and accomp ying PowerPoint. In his overview
Mr. Sellheim depicted the two Options, noting the main difference betty en them is their parking
arrangements. Option 1 provides parking entirely on-site and occupies he building's ground and
subterranean levels; Option 2 would provide parking on the ground lev while the rest of its parking spaces
would be provided across the street, at a to-be-built 2-story parking stri....;ture, of which 1/2 would be retained
for public parking. He noted that the second option was submitted in cage the applicant is unable to bridge
the financing gap that has emerged for Option "1".
Mr. Sellheim described the proposed apartment building, which include
and a description of its architectural features: the facade features inclu
and stucco walls, plant covered walls, raised planters, vertical and hori
noting that a few of the design features will occupy different planes oth
as the eyebrows and the raised planters. Also adding to the elevations
stucco walls will feature a light sand finish and be painted wither white
horizontal and vertical eyebrows will also be painted white, while the pl
Sellheim described the architectural style as contemporary and employ
as a generous amount of articulation, applying both symmetrical and a
using horizontal and vertical elements as accent features and providing large number of windows and
glass doors.
During his presentation, the Commission asked numerous questions, in.particular regarding to the parking
plans. Mr. Sellheim affirmed that Option 2 would provide the off-site pajdng at the parking area across 2"
Street, that currently accommodates public parking and parking for the jirst Baptist Church of Downey. He
explained that both plans will provide 100 parking spaces. He also revi wed how the two Options differed in
terms of the floor lay-outs. In terms of dwelling unit size, both Options " " and "2" will offer 35, two-bedroom
units ranging from 795 square feet to 863 square feet and 15, three-be oom units measuring 1,002 square
feet and centrally located laundry room for each floor. He noted that thij development standard meets the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20,
a presentation of the elevations
alternating aluminum storefront
ntal eyebrows and metal awnings,
than the main building wall, such
s the proposed color scheme: the
a contrasting light blue. The
ters will be light blue in color. Mr.
a number of design elements such
mmetrical architectural principles,
10 PAGE 6
1
Ij
Page 7
requirements of the Density Bonus Ordinances, which requires that affo able housing
sufficient on-site self-serve laundry facilities to meet the tenants' needs.
Mr. Sellheim explained that t
Gpproved, would allow to 96 units per acre. He stated that if th Com sion agrees with staff's
recommendation, the Commission would approve the Site PIan Review ppIication, while the action for the
Density Bonus application will be a "recommendation to City Council".
Chairman Morales asked staff for any correspondence that had been reLeived.
Mr. Sellheim distributed copies of a letter form Mr. and Mrs. Emory Sip - . property owner of a business
along Downey Avenue, who indicated concerns of how the displaced p
their business. Mr. Sellheim responded to the Emorys' concerns noting
Commissioner Kiefer commented that it did not seem very convenient.
�
V
il
PLANNNG COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20, 010 PAGE 7
Iic parking spaces would affect
hat the displaced parking spaces
would be replaced. (He pointed out that the 44 spaces to be provided ross the street will be public
parking spaces.) He noted that there are 16 public parking spaces behp the business. Mr. Sellheim also
noted that the entrance to the apartment building will be from 2 nci Street,notfnonnthe8outhaohadbeen
depicted in an earlier iteration.
In addition, Assistant Community Development Director, John Perfitt DrG vided slide elevations of the
proposed two-story parking structure and affirmed that the structure wo .Id only be necessary if one of the
funding sources cannot be secured. He stated that this option is advangeous to the businesses along
Downey Avenue and noted the structure is planned to be located direct behind the businesses at Downey
�
Avenue/Second Street, and 60 feet avvay from the properties south of2 Street. Mr. Perfitt explained that
city staff has been negotiating with surrounding businesses and the chur for upwards of two years to
provide a good parking plan. He stated that the City has negotiated extnsiveIy with the church and,
irrespective of the project, he has the green light to go forward with the Ivo-story parking structure.
Commissioner Kiefer asked how the structure would be utilized and d acatedtoUleapartnlert tenants.
Mr. Perfitt explained that the company developing the project, National kmne, would manage the project; that
the structure would be available to the public on the ground floor and ko,vt secure for tenants' use onthe
second floor by use of a control gate and swipe card.
Community Development Director Saeki noted that a napremantativefnoxn National CORE was present and
would be able to respond to the adequacy of the parking plan as propoted, since he has the experience of
operating such facilities.
Mr. Perfitt explained further that this project is a downtown housing that the City processed a
downtown Specific Plan in order to facilitate in-fill projects ouohmathio.^Reopondingtmotheroonmnmentoand
questions of the Commission, Mr. Perfitt stated that one of the strateg\e_i the City is pursuing to revitalize
downtown is to build a critical mass of residential units dovvn0ovvn, and toted this project was setting the bar
high.
Alfredo lzmajtovich of National Community Renaissance (National CO stated that they are one of the
largest non-profit housing development companies in Southern Califon-7a. They are a full service company,
meaning they build, own and operate their pr jects and employ 350 pe:ple. They have built and operate
1O.O0O units, mf which O5OO are in Southern California. He described ir commitment to high quality and
pointed to their successful track record. He said that approximately 90�'0 of their housing stock is affordable
with some mixed-income communities. He explained that although thei have mostly family units, their
portfolio also includes 2500 senior units. He stated they also now operAm "Clark Manor" in Downey.
Page 8
Mr. lzmajtovich responded to a question from Commissioner Kiefer, no
is in downtown aneae, but also in suburban communities. Responding
Murray, he stated that he understands the parking concerns expressed
show the actual demand is 1.04 per unit.
Chairman Morales noted that it can be difficult to determine actual par
Mr. Perfitt added that one of the reasons National CORE was selected, through the RFP process, was
because of their track record managing their facilities. They mairitain the units once built, keeping
employees on-site; that National CORE is involved in every aspect of selecting tenants and this review will
include evaluation of each tenant's number of vehicles. Mr. Perfitt noted that City staff had also been
concerned about parking and had inventoried eight separate pr jecte by performing car counts during the
week and on the week-ends. �
Community Development Director Saek reminded
once public parking reaches 60% utilization, the City will conduct a park g study to determine if alternatives
need to be provided. He noted that downtown public parking is currentli at about 44-45% utilization.
The Commissioners asked/addressed the following: 1) Number of peop1,3 per unit; 2) How applicants are
screened; 3) How the tandem parking spaces are allocated.
Mr. tcnnatwvch noted that they anticipate between 2.000 — 8.000 appUoAion and will screen each
application very closely; they follow strict rules as part of the |ovv' m-mVaarate income state requirements;
the maximum number of people they allow in a 2-bedroom is five, whiIe. three-bedroom could permit up to
�
7 people; most units are for family-oriented applicants. He stated the edian income for a family of four is
�8�.00O�xvhi|e�h�eooe���dinoonl�|�ve �or�he|Vvvtonnod kaobou�5OY6uf�he�.or
about $40,000/per yea� Mr. /znn jbovioh stated that tandem spaces a��aUooated within units, in order to
coordinate movement
Chairman Morales invited members of the public to address the Commksion. No one came forward.
Planning Commission comments:
Commissioner Murray stated that he is very much in favor of deveIopin: the dovvntmvvn, and supports
residential in the downtown but aoomnu�rneebou��hiep ��ct'oparkiQimpaots
' '~' 8 impacts.
Commissioner Lambros stated that she is comfortable with the directimr2and information provided by the
experts. She pointed out that the city's outreach to the community was ive and noted that because
no one from the business community has spoken against the p ject.s|leoeeunneathiniaaoignwfeupport
from the downtown businesses.
Commissioner Murray asked for clarification about the approval proces;.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20, XO1D— PAGE D
g that of their housing stock, some
a question from Commissioner
y the Commission, but studies
Q
need until the units are rented..
Mark 8e/lheim, Principal P|annmr, informed the Commission that the Sit* Plan Review, if approved tonight
will not become effective unless the Density Bonus application is mppnmned by Council. Mr. Saeki explained
there were additional approvals that the City Council will have to consicer besides Density Bonus, including
a Disposition and Development Agreement, before the project is appro-ied.
Commissioner Kiefer stated that he did not doubt that the affordable h. sing project wmuldberunviththe
highest standard of care, but expressed concern for the increase in de °itv. He stated that while the
positive points to support residential in the downtown area, such as a ,:lkable community and reduced
greenhouse gases, the parking concessions on top of allowing higher 41- nsity will only negatively impact the
already impacted downtown parking. He stated he supported the p j t, but did not support the parking
concessions of Option 2. Commissioner Kiefer suggested a continuan e, during which time parking be re-
examined and other options considered. He stated the importance to ovide adequate parking.
•
Page 9
Chairman Morales stated they still hadn't addressed the assignment of ..:ompact parking spaces, whether
they'd be for residents or guests, since it would be difficult to determine ^ rdi| the project is built. He added
that parking availability oftentimes drives a project.
�
ConnnniooionerK8urnaystated dovvntovvnpmd�ngiode�nib*|yaoha|hange�eopec|aUy during swap meets and
when other activities are going on downtown.
Mr. Perfitt made a couple of points: #1, the tenants will be assigned parling and will be subject to ticketing if
they park on the street, so the streets will not be impacted; #2, there wilibe an on-site manager who will
manage and continue to perfect the parking situation. He stated that allough 50 of the parking spaces
could be provided across the street, it is important to note that the parki requirement for this project is
higher than a conventional residential project built downtown. 8o, they re providing more than the Specific
Plan requ/nao, no matter which scenario goes forward. �
Mc|zmajtovich asked Commissioner Kiefer if his preference would be ss compact spaces, or fewer
spaces, but standard-size stalis? He explained that their apartment procts have under-utilized spaces.
Commissioner Kiefer responded that his concern is that compact space would not be adequate for the
tenants' needs.
Discussion ensued regarding the benefits of the project, vvhether projeci padkingvvou|dbeadequata;
whether the Commission should tour one or more of the applicant's faciNtiea to view the parking impacts;
and how management addresses property owners who bring in a 3 ve io|e.
K0c bnatoviohexp|ainadtha1tenart|eaoeagreernentsaratvpicaUyfo four years. When
applicants are in a better poeihon, perhaps when they buy a second or ind vehio|e, management
recognizes they should consider finding a more suited place for them. le explained that the goal of their
management team is to encourage financial health for their tenants.
Chairman Morales pointed out a difference between a lease arrangemcvt of terms such as 4-5 years,
compared to home owners who are invested in their homes. He noted iiat it is easier for applicants to
move forward in this scenario when their financial situation improves. Fie added that he likes the p ject.
noting that its architectural features will be a boost to downtown. He stted that the City is working on
revitalizing its downtown and this project fits into what was visualized. chairnnan Morales suggested that
the parking situation and impacts be re-examined when more developments are underway and the parking
utilization for public parking reaches 6096. He noted that during their w:rkshops, the Commission had
agreed that they welcomed the day parking was impacted by people in Iie downtown.
The Commissioners addressed National CORE projects in Whittier (51 mnituvvith 103 parking spaces);
Hawthorne (100 units with 184 parking spaces) and Yorba Linda ( 67 ulits with 113 parking spaces.)
Assistant Community Development Director Peditt stated there are sow time constraints imposed on this
project in order to meet deadlines for financing; hovvavar, he agreed th a two week continuance could be
supported. N
Commissioner Lambros stated that a continuance in order to tour other
provide the answer the Commissioners are seeking: the impact of parki
they would not hear the comments of those affected.
Commissioner Kiefer said he no longer felt a continuance is necessary.
/ I
1
acilities would not necessarily
g on neighboring businesses, since
Mr. Perfitt explained to the Commission how staff had raised the same _uesUona and concerns during the
earlier iterations of this project and toured National CORE projects withiwo Council members. He said staff
would provide the addresses of those p jects as has been requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION MJNUTES, OCTOBER 20, i010 —PAGE8
Page 10
Commissioner Lambros said she is ready to move forward tonight.
1
Commissioner Murray asked if assurances could be put in place to pgrimdioaUy review the parking situation.
Mr. Perfitt responded, negotiations are well-advanced in securing a paring structure across the street,
regardless of the direction of this project. He assured that Option 2 oou&j not move forward without this
parking arrangement with the church, which would add 44covenanted - blic parking spaces.
i /
�onlnnieaioner Kiefer asked �NeboDa|<�C)F(E had developed p jectev���napardngie provided aoroaothe
street.
Mr. lzmajtovich responded that he wasn't aware of one where parking was off-site; however, he knew of
projects where thm parking is in the near, and that distance is as much 500 feet from the units.
Mr. Perfitt noted that staif had toured Parkview Terrace, a senior pr jeoNin Bell Gerdeno, where on-site
parking is further away than what would be provided for thiproject. Aripther popular project is Park La
Brea in Los Angeles where multi-family developments are clustered arotnd parking decks. He noted this
comparison is apples to orangee, but the point is that parking must be ativeforiDAU developments.
Mr. lzmajtovich added that the key to success is the management. ThaUtheParhviewTerrace project in Bell
Gardens only required .7 spaces per unit, but that is more than adequa' for seniors' parking needs. He
stated this project is also more adequately parked.
_'
Commissioner Murray said it is a beautiful project and he would like to liave it move forward. He ( noted
that no one from the business community had addressed the CommissDn with any concerns. He noted
therewuu|dbeannp|epub|iopa/k)ngprovidedin|ieuoftheepaoen|ost.^Hestatedthcthaieneadytomova
forward. He added that the project, if approved by the Connnniosion, vvi|0be forwarded to Council and their
review will include the Development Agn*ennent, as well as the Density onus Application.
Chairman Morales agreed. He pointed out that the City has been worki g on numerous approaches to
revitalize the downtown and the steps taken are not new to downtown velopment. He agreed these steps
are new to Downey, and this being one of the first residential projects downtown is one from which the
Commission and the City will learn. He didn't think a two-week continu ce would be beneficial.
Commissioner Kiefer said he'd like to be provided with the Iist discussed. He said sometimes,
after such developments are developed, a parking nightmare begins. 1-13 said he is favor of the increased
deneity, but the only problem he foresees is in regards to parking. He'QUketo move cautiously with this
project and avoid the potential of such negative impacts. Commissione Kiefer agreed that the architectural
design was very beautiful.
Mr. Perfitt stated that was correct. If the Commission approves the Sb� Review and forwards the
project to the Chv Council, but Council denies the Density Bonus App|\cnt}pn, the project would unvvind.
Chairman Morales stated that in this situation, with the economy what i today, and with this being the first I.
high density request for the do� vvntovvnand no others Vn the horizon it�� -0 tua||ynnakeo this p jeotnnora �
acceptable. I
J N
It was moved by Commissioner Lambroo, seconded by Commissioner |lurray and passed by a 4-0-1 vote,
with Commissioner Vasquez not present /abetaining\, to adopt Reeo|ut n No. 10-2878. approving Site Plan
Review No. 09-71.
i
Commissioner Lambros asked to affirm that without the approval by Co= nci| of the Density Bonus
App|ioatinn, the project would not move forward.
f
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 2O.22.)1O— PAGE 1O
Page 11
It was moved by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Chairman Morale, and passed by a 4-0-1 to adopt
Resolution No. 10-2679, recommending approval of Density Bonus No109-72 to the City Council.
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There was no Oral Communication from =le public.
Staff:
Community Development Director Saeki reminded the Commission tha Ithe "Dine in Downey" event
planned for November 18, will run from 5:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. and will be s:=3t up on Third Street, outside City
Hall. Patrons, upon purchase of an entry fee, will be able to be free to :4ick and choose between the vendors.
He shared that the Taste of Downey event will include a stage where u on a band will be performing.
Responding to a question from Chairman Morales, Mr. Saeki stated th the anticipated grand opening for
Porto's is being considered for late November. He also noted that the kery is near completion, while the
parking structure was not quite ready.
Commission
Commissioner Murray stated that the Chamber of Commerce was host g a Candidates Forum on Thursday
evening at Downey High School. Commissioner Murray also noted tha he would not be present for the
November 3 Planning Commission meeting.
IX. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Saeki affirmed there were several item scheduled for the next Planning
Commission meeting of November 3, 2010.
X. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA: No further items were addressed.
Xl. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come befo the Planning Commission, the
Commission adjourned at 8:30 p.m., to November 3, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. :it Downey City Hall, 11111
Brookshire Avenue, Downey, Ca.,
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 2010.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Minutes were duly approved at Regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 3rd day of November, 2010, by the fdlowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lambros, Kiefer, Morales
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Murray, Vasquez
H:\PLANNING\PC Minutes 20, 2010
1
Louis Morales
Louis Morales, C.Dairman
CITY PLANNINC: COMMISSION
Theresa Donah e
Theresa Donah , Secretary
CITY PLANNINI COMMISSION
1
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20, 2 10 — PAGE 11
CEQA
� • ■
'DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2010
TO:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
October 20, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION
•
STA
ma
•
FROM: BRIAN SAEKI, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DE\:ELOPMENT
MARK SELLHEIM, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: Site Plan Review and Density Bonus Applications =o develop a 50 -unit multi-
family apartment project at 8314 2 Street.
Staff has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the - Iifornia Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Upon completion of this review, Staff determined th project is categorically
exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1519 Affordable Housing
Exemption. A Categorical Exemptions is a project that will not ha -e significant effect(s) on the
environment and has been exempted from the requirements of C -iQA. Section 15194 includes
projects that consist of 50 of fewer units, that occupy a site not mi=re than 5 acres and meet
the threshold criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15192 ,
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following -t -Jed resolutions:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI Y OF DOWNEY
APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 09-71,
II
APPLICATION
COMPRISED OF OPTIONS "1" AND "2" THAT INVOLVES TH DESIGN AND ONSITE
IMPROVEMENTS OF A SIX- STORY, 50 -UNIT MULTI - FAMILY FFORDABLE APARTMENT
PROJECT LOCATED AT 8314 2 STREET, ZONED DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI `Y OF DOWNEY
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DENSITY B NUS APPLICATION NO.
09 -72 FOR THE VIEW APARTMENTS, LOCATED AT 8314 2 MEET, ZONED
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN.
1
It
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
SITE LOCATION
8314 2 Street
I. SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Location:
Applicant:
Mailing Address:
Authorized Agent:
Mailing Address:
Applicant Notification:
Legal Notices Date:
Required Action Date:
II. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
town Specific Plan
town Specific Plan
8314 2" Street
Community Developn n t Commission
11111 Brookshire Avuiue, Downey, CA
National Community lienaissance (National CORE)
9065 Haven Ave., Ra - cho Cucamonga, CA
October 1, 2010
October 7, 2010
October 20, 2011
Page 2
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
1
First Bap
Verizon Telcom
Switching Building
Retail Uses
Retail/Service
Commercial Uses
11.1
For this development proposal, the Planning Commission is conside+g two applications that will
permit the development of a six-story, 50-unit multi-family affordable-partment project, known as
the View Apartments, at 8314 2" Street. They include Site Plan Ref w No. 09-71 and Density
Bonus No. 09-72. In addition, the site plan review application consi of two alternatives —
Options "1" and "2"— which are nearly similar, except for their parkirg arrangements. Parking for
Option "1" will be provided entirely onsite and occupy the building's aund and subterranean
levels. Option "2" also provides parking on the ground level, but do include a subterranean
level. Instead, the rest of its parking spaces will be provided at an ot ite location proximate to the
project site.
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
The applicant ( "National Community Renaissance ", or "National COME ") developed Option "2" in
case they're unable to close the financing gap that has emerged wih Option "1". Estimates show
Option "1" will be more expensive to implement due to the cost of c_nstructing the subterranean
parking level. As a result, National CORE developed Option "2" in t -e event they cannot bridge the
gap.
The .52 -acre project site, 8314 2n Street, is located in downtown Downey on the south side of 2 "
Street, about a half block east of the intersection of Downey Avenu. and 2 Street (see Exhibit 1).
It totals 22,540 square feet and maintains 161 feet of frontage and depth of 140 feet.
Improvements that currently occupy the site include a vacant, 2 -sto 35,720 square foot
commercial building that was constructed in 1951; Verizon Californi=, Inc., owned the parcel until
the City's Community Development Commission recently purchase it. The .52 -acre project site
also encompasses the adjoining 16 -space city-owned parking lot, t. ted immediately west of the
former Verizon building.
The former Verizon building housed telecommunication - switching e
services for the Downey area. However, due to advancements in t
Verizon no longer needed it for operations. Advancements in techn
services, while at the same time requiring less space for switching
Verizon deemed it surplus and conveyed it to the City's Community
(CDC) in June, 2008. The CDC purchased the property, using red:
the intent of replacing the existing building with an affordable, multi
the units, under this plan, will be restricted to families eaming betty-
of Los Angeles County's average median income.
In regards to land use classifications, the project site, as well as the
last month from Downtown Plan Overlay Zone to Downtown Specifi
intent of the specific plan is to guide growth and development, enco
and foster a lively center of activity for the community. The plan est
use area composed of five (5) land use districts, each having its ow
standards; together, the five districts achieve a mix at build out of 4
commercial uses. Along with zoning, the project site is designated
Plan's land use diagram (see Exhibit 3). The recently- adopted spe
uses.
uipment, which provided basic
ecommunication technology,
logy allowed for additional
,uipment. As a consequence,
' evelopment Commission
elopment housing funds, with
mily rental development; and
n 30 percent and 60 percent
est of Downtown was rezoned
Plan (see Exhibit 2). The
rage economic revitalization
blished 131 acres as a mixed
design and architectural
lo residential and 60%
Aixed Use" on the General
fc plan is consistent with the
"Mixed Use" designation, which also envisions the development of Lath commercial and residential
The contemplated project will add to the City's inventory of affordabl = rental units, plus implement a
key City objective with respect to Downtown: increase its permanent opulation, and thus add to its
daytime and evening activity hours, which in tum, will support Downtwn businesses. In addition to
adding population, project development will implement the City's de'. eIopment goal for Downtown:
establish a more urban district with a diverse mix of uses and longer activity periods. According to
the "Livable Communities" chapter in the 2005 General Plan Update!Downtown is one of the three
opportunity areas in the community designated "Mixed Use," due to =actors like location and land
use mix, which provides opportunities to create alternative development types, such as mixed -use
projects and more livable communities using smart growth strategie_ The concept of "Livable
Communities" provides altematives to the traditional segregation of Ind uses by advancing mixed -
use areas with special characteristics to create a "sense of place" fo residents and visitors.
i
The related concept of smart growth addresses the challenges that r=any mature cities with few
vacant properties, like Downey, face of absorbing population and ecxomic growth without
disrupting existing neighborh•••s. Smart growth advances strategie that reduce the dependency
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
IN
r
.J1
4
Lin
I •
1 EXHIBIT NO. 1: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
PROJECT NO.: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 09-71
DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION NO 09-72
PROJECT LOCATION: 8314 SECOND STREET
0
North
1
Zoning Legend
Downtown Specific Plan
R -1 Single - Family Residential
R -2 Two - Family Residential
R -3 Multiple - Family Residential
C -P Professional Office
1 Neighborhood Commercial
_= 2 General Commercial
3 Central Business District
y _ M Hospital - Medical Arts
M Commercial Manufacturing
1 Light Manufacturing
2 General Manufacturing
PROJECT NO.: SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 09 -71
DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION NO. 09 -72
1
LDR - L • RESIDENTIAL
MDR - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
GC - GENERAL COMMERCIAL
CM - COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING
MU - MIXED USE
0- OFFICE
1 EXHIBIT NO. 3: GENERAL PLAN MAP
PROJECT NO.: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 09-71
DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION NO 09-72
PROJECT LOCATION: 8314 SECOND STREET
North
1
I1
1
1
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
on cars by providing convenient access to jobs, services and resid(fices. The decreased use of
cars, will in turn, reduce the number of vehicles on the road, which ecrease traffic congestion,
lessens the impacts on air quality and uses Tess energy.
The General Plan identified Downtown as the area in the communiti_ that has the most potential to
advance the livable community and smart growth concepts. And in 3rder for Downtown to achieve
its goals of establishing a more urban district with a diverse mix of Les and longer activity periods,
Staff suggests it needs to increase nighttime population; and providiig more housing is a land use
policy that will implement that goal. Additional housing will not only increase population that will
support Downtown businesses, but result in the added benefits of decreasing parking demand and
traffic congestion by encouraging walkability. On a related subject, -ate applicant indicated the
project will be designed as a LEED Certified building (Leadership in energy and Environmental
Design). LEED is the nationally accepted benchmark for the desigriof green buildings and
consists of a third -party certification program, with standards defininz green building practices.
The General Plan policy and program that address housing Downtcrvn are the following:
• Policy 1.2.2. Focus on areas where livable community cor. cepts are most likely to have
the most impact to set a catalyst for similar projects elsewere in the community.
• Program 1.2.2.3. Promote housing, mixed -use housing art other land uses that will
generate nighttime pedestrian traffic in the Downtown. �
Applications Planning Commissioners are considering for this proje include: 1) Site Plan Review
Application No. 09 -71 and Density Bonus Housing Application No. -72. Each is briefly described
in the following paragraphs and evaluated further in Section V.
Site Plan Review No. 09 -71. Site Plan Review No. 09 -71 is a request to develop a 6 -story, 50 -unit
multi - family project that consists of two options that differ in regards b their parking arrangements.
Parking for Option "1" is provided entirely onsite, while a portion of tt -.i parking spaces for Option
"2" is provided nearby. According to the Downtown Specific Plan, a = ite plan review application
applies to new structures and onsite improvements within the boundaries of the plan. And the
purpose of the application is to ensure that the project's developmer_ features, architectural style
and onsite improvements conform with the provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan.
Density Bonus Application No. 09 -72 is a request to grant the pr t a density bonus of eleven
(11) units. Under the Dow 5r pecific Plan, the project site is in a Firestone Boulevard
Gateway district, where the maximum allowable density is 75 dwelli units per acre. However,
the density of the proposed 50 -unit project is 96 units per acre and t( comply with the district's
requirement of 75 units per acre would mean downsizing the project -o 39 units. In light of the
limitation, the applicant filed a density bonus for 11 units; otherwise re project is not financially
feasible, according to the applicant.
The Density Bonus Application also includes two concession reques : 1) a concession to increase
the percentage of compact parking spaces for Option "1 ". Accordingi o the Downtown Specific
Plan, a maximum of 15% of a project's parking stalls may be comps spaces; the applicant wants
to increase the percentage to 25 %; and 2) a concession to reduce th-: parking requirement for
Option "2 "; the parking requirement for multi - family rental units under he specific plan is 1.5 spaces
per unit; the applicant wants to reduce the requirement to 1 space pe= unit.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
Page 4
l
•
•
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
The rest of the report is organized in the following manner: Section II describes the affected site's
adjacent improvements and land uses, while Section IV describes t, e proposed project; Section V
provides the analysis evaluating the project's two discretionary act, -is.
III. NEIGHBORING LAND USES
i
Land uses occupying the project site's neighboring properties inclucp. a mix of activities, among
them retail, service commercial, office and institutional uses. As Exibit 1 illustrates, the affected
_
site is bordered by 2" Street on the north, another Verizon building An the east, a public alley on
the south and a row of single -story, retail buildings that front on Dorsey Avenue on the west. All
of the neighboring properties, like the project site, are zoned Downtown Specific Plan and
designated "Mixed Use" on the General Plan land use diagram.
1
Second Street provides direct access to the project site and it is an ast/west street with a 60 -foot
right -of -way; it carries one lane in each direction and provides curb e parking on both sides of the
street. Access to the site is also provided by the above - mentioned liey, which also serves as its
southerly boundary. The alley extends east from the project site ab ut 170 feet, where it opens
into an expansive, 150 -space rectangular- shaped parking lot whos aisles lead to the Civic Center
District, 2 and 3` Streets, Dolan Avenue and Firestone Boulevard.'
The largest of the neighboring uses, in terms of land area, is the Firms Baptist Church of Downey;
the church with its attendant buildings occupies the 3-acre campus 'cross 2 Street from the
project site. It is bordered by 2" Street on the south, 3` Street on t north; while its westerly and
easterly boundaries include a city -owned parking lot and an Embas Suites Hotel, respectively.
Buildings occupying the church site include the sanctuary, an admi tration building, a number of
2 -story education buildings, a multi- purpose building, a chapel and 2 -story classroom with a
basement. Other improvements include surface -level parking lots t t frame the east and west
sides of the property.
The neighbor east of the project site is another Verizon building with,
2 -story building constructed in 1983 that houses telecommunication
uses east of the Verizon building include an expansive, rectangular -
with buildings framing it on four sides: the Verizon building and the
building anchor the west side of the parking lot, while the church sa
building, an Embassy Suites Hotel and a 3 -story office building bord
sides of the lot, respectively. Both the office building and hotel also front on Firestone Boulevard.
The office building is located at 8345 Firestone Boulevard (northwest comer of Firestone Boulevard
and Dolan Street) and a Wells Fargo Bank branch office is the primary tenant. It was constructed
in 1985 and contains nearly 51,000 square feet. The Embassy Suites Hotel with its Spanish - revival
architectural style totals eight stories and was built in 1986; the hotel, ontains 165,401 square feet
and houses 215 rooms. Adjacent to the hotel are civic center uses Gat include City Hall, the
Downey Public Library and the Downey Theatre.
Retail uses occupy the properties south of the affected site's rear all y. Improvements occupying
these lots consist of a row of adjoining 1 -story buildings that front Fir stone Boulevard; their
parking is located behind the buildings and the alley provides acre to the spaces. The buildings
range in size from 7,300 to 15,000 square feet and together they ho a eleven tenant spaces
sandwiched between a Leeds Mattress store and a Senor Baja Mex an restaurant. Other uses
include a photography store and a music store.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
Page 5
its 20 -space parking lot; it's a
witching equipment. Land
haped, 150 -space parking lot
ptist Church's multi - purpose
tuary and a church education
r the north, east and south
Mostly local- serving uses occupy the row of 1 -story buildings west the project site (the other side
of the city -owned parking lot). These buildings front on Downey Av and the businesses
occupying them include a shoe, beauty supply and flower stores, a skin care center, dry cleaners,
a nail salon, a printing business and an insurance company.
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Options "1" and "2"
The development proposal, as discussed above, consists of Option
submitted the application with two alternatives because it provides t
proceed with a less costly alternative, Option "2 ", in the event they'r
gap that has surfaced with Option "1". Also note that the 6 -story ap,
with each option is nearly same, with the exception of their parking
The project, as noted above, involves razing the site's existing commercial structure, along with the
adjoining city -owned parking lot and replacing them with a six story, 0 -unit affordable apartment
project. Plans of Option "1" show a ground -level and subterranean -I =vel podium supporting five
levels of apartments. The two podium levels also serve as a parkinc'structure that together house
100 parking spaces. Floors 2, 3 and 4 will each contain 11 units, wile floors 5 and 6 will provide 9
and 8 units, respectively.
Option "2" also involves constructing a 6 -story apartment project, bu -it provides parking at two
locations. The building's ground floor will be developed as parking ('lspaces), but unlike the first
option, it does not have a subterranean parking level. Instead, the r g spaces,
of the project
requirement
tion, Planning
approximately 50 stalls, will be provided
site. The provisions of requiring 50 offsit
have been incorporated as conditions of t
Division Conditions No.10 and No. 11).
ite location that's
and the correspo
t approval (see
= ) 12::VJ
Option "2" also entails providing a minima public parking sp
project site, to offset the public parking sp project will displ
different with regards to the number of dwelling units rooms provide
will contain 9 units, floors 3 through 5 will each have 11, while the 6' will have 8 units.
In terms of dwelling unit size,
795 to 863 square feet and
options' floor plans show a
laundry facility on every lev
which requires that affordab
to meet the tenants' needs.
both Options "1"
kmitEre.41 #4
and "2" will offer 35,
nits measuring 1,0
ndry room on each r
ment standard in th
provide sufficient on
The project's primary entrance faces 2 Street, which will be locate
the - - the
foot
have a computer lab for the residents.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
Page 6
"1" and "2 ". National CORE
m with the flexibility to
unable to close the funding
tment building associated
rangements.
s, also within 200 feet of the
.. Option "2" is also slightly
on each floor. The 2 floor
+-bedroom units ranging from
square feet. In addition, both
„idential floor; providing a
Density Bonus Ordinance,
e self -serve laundry facilities
ear the northeast comer of
building lobb nd also providing access to
of Option 1 w also house a 1,500 square
reet entrance; he community room will also
In comparison, the ground floor of Option "2" does not have a commL-iity room. Instead, the
parking area was enlarged; as a result, the leasing office has decrea.Fied to 256 square feet and the
community room has been relocated to the podium or 2" level and tc als 1,700 square feet.
�I
•
Y
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
Contemporary is the architectural style that describes the project's
please note that the elevations of Option "1" and "2" are nearly iden
the project architect has designed an attractive building by incorpor
articulation, using a variety of building materials, providing promise
elements, and applying an extensive color palette that will clearly dine the building's numerous
planes (architectural style is discussed further in Section V.— Site P - n Review).
As the site plan shows, the building's footprint is designed in the sh of an inverted U with its
massing following the site's easterly, northerly and westerly propert Hines; a 5,190 square foot
courtyard with a tot lot covers the southeast portion of the podium level. As the project's elevations
illustrate, different parts of the building will top out at various heights!which adds to its interesting
design. For example, the bulk of the building will feature six stories, rlxcept the northwest and
easterly parts, which step down to 4 and 5 stories, respectively. Thy" building measures 73'-6" at its
highest points.
Submitted plans also show the apartment project covering 89 %, or 2),120 square feet of the
22,540 square foot site. In addition, the building contains 90,561 grcFs square feet, while its
dimensions are 150' -6" wide (i.e., 2 " Street frontage) and 137 feet dt ep. The only parts of the site
that won't be covered are its edges; plans show the building set baci 2.5 feet from both the front
and rear property lines, while it maintains a 4 foot and a 6' -7" setbaci . from its westerly and easterly
property lines, respectively.
In terms of building intensity, the project proposes a density of 96 un=s per acre and a floor area
ratio (FAR) of 3.5. FAR measures building intensity by dividing floori area by site area; in this case,
79,947 square feet of building floor area divided by .52 acres, or 22, 540 square feet of lot area
(Option l's subterranean parking level is exempted from the FAR ca_✓ulation because it's below
grade). Correspondingly, 3.5 is the maximum FAR in the Firestone oulevard Gateway district (the
location of the project site), provided 100% of the proposed dwelling nits are affordable.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
Page 7
•
sign (See Exhibits 4 and 5 --
1). As the exhibits illustrate,
ng a generous amount of
horizontal and vertical
I
Site Plan Revie
Density Bonus
-,E •
•
•
9
to open space, both Options "1" and "2" will provide a to I of 11,370 square feet,
among three components: 1) the 2nd or podium -level co and 2) the roof garden and 3)
units' private patios. The courtyard measures 5,230 scare feet, while the roof garden
square feet. The location of the roof garden varies with; ach option. For Option "1", it
level, while Option "2" shows it on the 6 level. Lastly, jach unit will have a private
g from 50 to 100 square feet, depending on its location. rinits with the smaller patios
Street, while the large ones will be attached to the eastly and westerly elevations.
The patios collectively will total 4,320 square feet.
Other landscape amenities to be provided include raised planters a
that will be featured along the building's ground level. Raised plant
d range in length from 16 to 92 feet; while a green wall s
ations in 8 -foot high sections that range from 19 to 60 fe
eir roots, are contained by a modular green wall system
•
lion No. 09-71
Application No. 09 -72
to parking, both Options "1" and "2" will each provide 10
arking requirement for this development. Under the Do
ndard for multi - family rental units is 1.5 spaces per unit,
s (1.5 spaces x 50 units = 75 spaces). The balance of t
ted as guest parking.
Of Option l's 100 spaces, 41 will be housed on the ground level wit
providing 59 spaces. Further, 14 of the ground level stalls will be dE
configuration, while 34 of the subterranean level spaces will be desi
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2011
Page 8
•
1
As the report outlined initially, the parking arrangement fashioned fc" each option is the principal
difference between the two. The arrangement for Option "1" is des bed below, followed by a
discussion about the arrangement for Option "2 ".
i plant - covered exterior walls
s will edge all four sides of the
stem will be applied to the first
in length. The plants,
;paces, which exceeds the
town Specific Plan, the
us the minimum requirement
project's parking spaces will
the subterranean level
eloped in a tandem
red in the same manner.
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
Tandem parking is allowed under the Downtown Specific Plan in c«es where multiple spaces are
assigned to single unit, which is the case with the proposed project
In addition, the parking layout shows 8 of the ground level and 17 0_ the subterranean level spaces
designed as compact stalls. Their dimensions are 8' x 15', which rr tches the dimensions of
compact stalls in the Downtown Specific Plan. A standard -size sp is 8.5' x 18'. As the total
shows, 25% of Option 1's parking spaces are designed as compac stalls, whereas 15% is the
maximum permitted under the specific plan. To develop 25 %, the applicant has submitted a
concession request, as part of the project's Density Bonus Applicati-m. A concession is a
reduction in a development standard and the Density Bonus Ordinalce stipulates it must result in
and an actual cost reduction for the project. In response, the applicant indicated that developing
25% of the spaces as compact stalls will enable the development tcFmeet its parking requirement
on two levels; otherwise, the applicant would need to provide anoth _r subterranean level, which
provisions of providing 50 spaces offsite for tenant use, plus a mini
spaces to offset the public parking that project development will dis
facilities must be located within 200 feet of the project site. The pro
facilities and the distance requirement are conditions of project app
Parking counts were collected at the three lo
p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (i.e., peak parking deman
10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
ce on a Saturday at 11:30 a
tallied 104 occupied spaces, translating into a peak demand of 1.04
project has184 spaces, demand was adequately addressed.
With the results of the data collection indicating a peak demand of 1
5 needed when this rate is applied to the
recommend a
trl�rrVx to accomm
minimum of 5
Page 9
would make Option "1" financially infeasible.
Under Option "2 ", the building's ground floor is also devoted to park eig. Fifty -one spaces will be
provided with 13 designed as compact stalls. Yet unlike Option "1 ",:=tone of the stalls are designed
as tandem spaces. In addition, a second concession has been regk•kested to reduce the parking
requirement of Option "2" to one space per unit, or 50 spaces (the concession request is discussed
in more detail on page 17— Density Bonus Application). However, ciption "2" also includes the two
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
246 .1.1„
um of 44 public parking
ace. Further, both offsite
ision for offsite parking
val.
Also in regards to parking, City Staff, as part of this analysis, condu +'ed parking demand counts at
three nearby multi - family developments to calculate the parking de s. ects similar to the
proposed development. The developments inventoried are similar tm the proposed project in that
they contain affordable rental units, plus the project applicant owns hem. They include:
• Mulberry Villas in Whittier – Provides 51 units with 103 parlkng spaces ;
• Hawthorne Terrace in Hawthorne – Provides 100 units wi 184 parking spaces; and
• Arbor Villas in Yorba Linda – Provides 67 units with 113 pa ing spaces.
•
:..1•1!
•
0- minute intervals from 6:00
nd on a Saturday and
nd occurred at
s and the count
nit. Since the
r unit, a total of
ect. Traffic
and the
for the proposed
k demand, plus
e
pr
the 10 percent buffer. Therefore, since both options will provide 75 tnant spaces and 25 guest
stalls, Staff believes this amount will more than accommodate peak jemand.
Site Ran Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
Firestone Boulevard and Downey Avenue are the major streets thl are closest to the project site
and provide citywide access to it (see Exhibit1). Firestone Boulev d is an east/west aligned
highway, located about 150 feet south of the site and it's a major aerial carrying three lanes in
each direction. Downey Avenue is about half a block west of the a ected site. It is oriented in a
north/south direction and holds one lane in each direction as it tray rses downtown, then widens to
two lanes each way beyond downtown's boundaries.
Second Street provides access to the project site by providing dired access to the project's
ground-floor and subterranean parking level. For pedestrian acces , the project's main entrance
faces 2 Street, which leads to the lobby, where the elevator, mail om and stairway will be
located. Both the elevator and stairs will provide access to the buil ing's other five floors and the
subterranean parking level. Another stairway, also accessing the lher floors and the
subterranean level, will be located in the southwest corner of the biIding; doors on the west side of
the building will provide access to it. A stairway will also be Iocatedlat the southeast corner of the
building that will provide access to the podium courtyard and garde Also facing 2 Street and
located next to the lobby entrance is the entryway to the community (Option "1") and the
leasing office.
1) SITE P REVIEW APPLICATION
Specific Plan, the site plan review proces
improvements. Its intent is to ensure that
standards in the specific plan, which is es
following paragraphs discuss the project'
specific plan's provisions, beginning with
of the building's elevations.
A. Proposed Use
B. Design Standards
Page 10
V. ANALYSIS
Section V. provides an assessment of the discretionary application:that are necessary to develop
the proposed 6-story, 50-unit multi-family affordable project. They iiclude Site Plan Review
Application No. 09 -71 and Density Bonus Housing Plan Applicatiort No. 09-72, both of which are
discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.
No. - " 1. According to tke newly-adopted Downtown
. to new structure=-and any proposed onsite
t's development f atures conform to the
a custom-designd zoning ordinance. The
nt features ani compare them with the
use. It also Ionsiders the architectural style
j
In the Downtown Specific Plan, the 131-acre planning area is comp. sed of five (5) land use
districts, each with its own permitted uses and design and architect ' al standards. The project site
is in the Firestone Boulevard Gateway district, which lists apartmen as permitted uses. It further
stipulates that housing in this district must be located on the second.evel and floors above, and not
the ground level. Ground floor uses are restricted to activities such Is retail and service
commercial businesses, eating establishments and financial and prdessional offices. And both
Option "1" and "2" adhere to this condition. The dwelling units are d litributed on floors 2 through 6,
while the first level houses the lobby, a community center (in the ca &e of Option 1), a leasing office
1
and the parking garage.
As the Table 1 illustrates, the project's features comply with all appli able specific plan design
standards, except the density provision. But as mentioned previous?, one of the project's two
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 201(Y-
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
applications is a density bonus request to permit an increase abov
application is discussed further in the next section. The following t
design characteristics to the minimum standards in the specific pla
TABLE 1 – DESIGN STANDARDS
m Unit Size
m Coverage
um Density
um FAR
Building Setbacks
Landscape Requirement
Parking Requirement
C. Architectural Standards
1. Facade Modulation
2 Bedroom 750 sq. ft.
3 Bedroom -1,000 sq.ft.
100%
75 du /acre
3.5 FAR
Front —Min 0' /Max 5'
Side /Rear— Regulations apply
only to projects adjacent to
residentially -zoned properties
Planters shall occupy 25% of
the area between the front
bldg. line and the front property
line
1.5 spaces per unit – 75
spaces
depth, and ground - related entry door frequency. Architectural stan
plan, help shape the character of new construction. Their intent is t
the building's architecture to the sidewalk, as well as increase the vi
emphasize the design elements that create a sense of human scale
The specific plan defines facade modulation as, "adjusting or varvin
detail of a building's facade or changing its architectural component
to realize architectural variety." According to the specific plan, deve!
foot front setback line, such as the proposed project, are required to
building wall once every 60 feet. This can be achieved through bre
in massing, incorporating projecting bays or recesses, changes in e
differentiation in color, provide openings leading to ground -level ope
architectural detail and elements.
The building facades of both Options "1" and "2" are nearly the sam
show the front of the building satisfying the 60 -foot modulation stand
options, the front facade maintains 150 feet of frontage and it's com
features whose length varies from 6 to 22 feet. Features include alt
and stucco walls, two plant covered walls, raised planters, vertical a
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
Page 11
12 Bedroom
_ 3 Bedroom
1
1
.
.l
•
• • I
•
1
The following is a discussion of specific plan's architectural standar
of the project compare with them. Standards in the specific plan inc
e allowable density. The
le compares the project's
89%
96 du /acre
3.5 FAR
2' -5"
Not Applicable
100 spaces
795 sq. ft.
1,002 sq. ft.
26% or 97.5 sq. ft.
and how the design features
de facade modulation, facade
ds, according to the specific
mphasize the orientation of
al interest of buildings and
he proportions. scale or
elements or design in order
ments with a maximum 5-
ry the design of the front
in building planes, changes
rior building materials,
pace, and the use of
nd the elevation sheets
d. In the case of both
sed of a number of design
ating aluminum storefront
horizontal eyebrows and a
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
metal awning. Indeed, the facades incorporated many of the feat
suggested to attain effective modulation. For example, the plan re
changes, while the front elevation will feature stucco, storefront gl
Other features the plan suggests include vertical and horizontal a
devices such as eyebrows and awnings. Again, the front facade
horizontal eyebrow, as well as a horizontal metal awning. In additi
will occupy different planes other than the main building wall, such
planters. Further adding to the facade's modulation is the propos
will feature a light sand finish and be painted either white or a cont
and vertical eyebrows will also be painted white. As noted, the rais
facade's modulation. Light blue is the color that will be applied to
are proposed along the front facade ranging in length from 14 feet
2. Entry Door Frequency
Under the specific plan, a development shall space its ground -leve
fifty feet (50'). The purpose is to enhance pedestrians' interaction
as they use downtown's sidewalks and streets. The floor plan for
the building with two entries and their locations satisfy the minimu
easterly door leads to the apartment building lobby, with the other
community room, or the leasing office in the case of Option "2 ". In
show a horizontal metal awning above each entry, which highlights
3. Ground -Floor Minimum Clear Height
According to the Specific Plan, sufficient ground -floor clear height r
ensure that new construction facilitates quality commercial and rest
ground level. For the project site, the minimum clear height for first
12 feet clear from top of floor to the bottom of the ceiling. Submitte
the project's first floor slightly exceeds the minimum requirement; t
to ceiling.
D. Architectural Style
Exhibit 6 shows the building's 2n Street (front) and west elevations,
and materials legend. And one of the most prominent aspects of th
effective use of symmetry. Examples on the 2n Street, or north ele
pattem that's imposed on the part of the building that's covered in s
Another, is the five levels of side -by -side balconies. Each apartmen
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
Page 12
s that the specific plan
mmends building material
, and plant covered walls.
lation and the use of shading
feature both a vertical and
a few of the design features
the eyebrows and the raised
color scheme; the stucco walls
ting light blue. The horizontal
planter will also add to the
e planters; and three planters
45 feet.
ntrances at least once every
d connectivity with the facade
th Options "1" and "2" shows
'stance requirement. The
viding access to the
dition, the front elevations
e location of the doors.
uirements are necessary to
ntial uses along the buildings'
or uses shall not be less than
plans show that the height of
distance is 12' -10" from floor
Contemporary describes the project's architectural style and the development's elevation sheets
show an attractive building. To this end, the project's architectural team employed a number of
design elements, such as providing a generous amount of articulation, applying both symmetrical
and asymmetrical architectural principles, using horizontal and vertical elements as accent features
and providing a large number of windows and glass doors. Further adding to the building's design
is a mix of building materials with contrasting finishes and colors tha % ork well together.
ng with providing the colors
o facades is the architect's
tion include the window
on- colored horizontal siding.
ill have a balcony fitted with
metal railing, security mesh and accents to match the silver mullions if the balconies' glass doors
and windows. In viewing the front elevation as a whole, Staff feels it well balanced even though
half of it is two floors are higher than the other, elements that are us-- to maintain balance include
contrasting materials and colors and the 5 floor roof garden (the r arden for Option 2 is on the
1
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
6 floor). Plans show the garden measuring 1,820 square feet an
building tenants, but provide visual relief for the surrounding built e
Another example of symmetry used effectively is the building's we
achieve this effect include the five levels of side -by -side balconies,
most of the elevation and the application of colors to clearly define
The colors that are used to help achieve that balance include gray,
Exhibit 6). Other factors that will highlight the elevation's symme
small, rectangular- shaped sections of salmon - colored lap siding th
white horizontal stucco element that separates the 4 and 5 floor
Another element adding to the west elevation are the numerous bu . ing planes and the colors that
have been chosen to highlight and define them. For example, gray ardi panels will be applied to
the surfaces framing the balconies, which will project beyond the alining walls. In addition, a
stucco finish painted Tight green will be applied to the walls sandwicng the balconies and those
same walls will be offset from the adjoining balcony walls. Also adg to this elevation's visual
interest are the balconies on the sixth story, which will highlight the 5gade due to their location and
contrasting color. As Exhibit 6 shows, the adjoining balconies are cmtered at the top of the
building and set in from the balconies below them. In addition, thei ght blue stucco finish will
provide a marked contrast to the adjoining colors: light green and li t gray.
Moreover, even though the west elevation's features are predomin ly symmetrical, it does have
elements that give it an asymmetrical appearance that results in an ractive effect. Features
contributing to its asymmetry are the elements anchoring the fa9ad at the front end is a 3 -level
component covered with the salmon - colored Hardi lap siding, while f the south side is highest part
of the structure (73' -6 "), which is covered in white stucco.
In contrast to front and west elevations, the design elements applie4o the east - facing building wall
results in a design that seems entirely asymmetrical. The east elev.on (Exhibit 7) consists of
three very distinctive rectangular- shaped sections; each featuring
and each topping out at a different height. In addition, each one will
The contrasting finishes include the smooth Hardi panel lap siding
colors are salmon, white and Tight blue. Staff suggests the colors a
together.
Salmon - colored horizontal siding will cover the southernmost sectio which is also positioned
differently than the others. It's lower than the others. The bottom oil is section drops below the
top of the podium deck because it covers four building levels, while = other sections cover five
levels. It also occupies its own plane and projects further out than OA others.
Another section will have a Tight sand stucco finish painted blue, whi the tallest part of the east -
facing wall will house one of the building's two stairways and it too feature a Tight sand finish,
but it will be painted white. The portion housing the stairs is at the n heast comer of the building
and it wraps around the comer of the building and becomes part of t northerly elevation.
Submitted elevation sheets also shows this building comer featuring o accent elements that will
wrap around the comer. One is a small section of the salmon -color lap siding placed near the
top of the building, while right below it a smaller section with a light en stucco finish.
Also adding to the building's appeal is its varying heights. For example, the eastern portion of the
front the building tops out at six levels, while the westerly part is limit to four levels in order to
accommodate the roof garden that's planned for the 5 level. Actua , the highest parts of the
building are the comers, which will house the stairway: the northeas nd southwest corners and
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
Page 13
of only will it benefit the
ronment.
levation. Elements used to
e window pattern that covers
different building planes.
ht blue and light green (see
re two accent elements: the
frame the balconies and the
!conies.
trasting finishes and colors
ccupy its own building plane.
sus the light sand stucco; the
finishes also work well
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
they'll top out at 73' -6 ". Similarly, the podium courtyard and the fiv€ and six -story portions that will
frame it offer an interesting contrast in height; submitted plans shove a courtyard /garden covering
about 23 percent of the rear portion of the podium or second level, .-'hile 5 and 6 -story building
sections frame the courtyard on three sides (see Exhibit 7).
In closing, Staff appreciates the project's architectural style and we -,elieve the architect has
designed an attractive building. Yet, we feel a few of the colors tha make up the color palette, as
well as the proposed light sand stucco finish will quickly give the bu ing a dated appearance.
Moreover, we believe the project exemplifies the Contemporary arc itectural style and its features
should reinforce that style. For example, the light green color that's tanned for large portions of
the building's west, south and east elevations resembles the avoca green color that was so
popular in the 1970s. Another example is the white color that's pla ed for the northeast and
northwest corners of the building, the tallest parts of the structure. aff feels this shade of white
has too much yellow in it and as a result will appear dirty very quick . As such, Staff suggests that
the applicant consider making the following changes in order to rein rce the building's
Contemporary style.
• Replace the light sand stucco finish with a smooth finish.
• Replace the white color (Dunn Edwards W340) with a light ay color.
• Replace the light blue color (Talleserl Blue— DEC798) with dark gray color.
• Replace the light gray color (DE6360) with a middle gray col r.
• Replace the proposed light green color (DE5509) with a purr green. Applying a purer or
crisper green will provide a better contrast with the salmon -c 'Iored horizontal lap siding.
E. Site Plan Review Findings
Section 9820 of the Downey Municipal Code provides that the Planrng Commission shall make
the following findings in approving or conditionally approving an appcation for Site Plan Review.
1) That the site plan is consistent with the goals and policies ernbodi -d in the General Plan and
other applicable plans and policies adopted by the Council. Site Plat Review No. 09 -71 is a
request to develop a 6 -story apartment project with 50 units for income- restricted households. The
application consists of two (2) alternatives— Options "1" and "2 " —whh differ primarily with regards
to their parking arrangements. Parking for Option "1" will be provide t onsite and occupy the
building's ground and subterranean levels. Option "2" will also provide parking on the ground level,
but does not include a subterranean level. Rather, the ground level gill accommodate 51 spaces,
while the balance, approximately 50 spaces, will be provided at an o site location within 200 feet of
the project site. Option "2" also provides a minimum of 44 public sp s offsite, also within 200
feet of the project site, to offset the public spaces the project will dis ce. The project site, as well
as the offsite parking areas, is located in Downtown Downey and de 'aloping either altemative will
implement a General Plan policy and program that encourages the velopment of housing
Downtown. Specifically, General Plan Policy 1.2.2 states, Focus on Areas where livable
community concepts are most likely to have the most impact to set a atalyst for similar projects
elsewhere in the City. According to the General Plan, Downtown Downey is one of the three areas
in the community that's designated "Mixed Use" and it's an area whet?, implementing the livable
community concepts will have the biggest impact due to their location and development pattem.
For example, developing altemative project -types such as residentia: rojects adjacent to
commercial uses will create a more livable community. Doing so will educe the dependency on
cars by providing convenient access to jobs, services and dwelling u, its. Reducing the use of cars
will also lead to a reduction in the number of vehide miles traveled, ich reduces traffic
congestion and the effects of worsening air quality. The General Pia Program that project
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
Page 14
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
development will implement is Program 1.2.2.3, which states, Prom' =-_'te housing, mixed -use
housing, and other land uses that will generate nighttime pedestriar-traffrc in the Downtown.
Developing either option will also implement the following Housing I Iement goal and policy: Goal
2: Encourage a variety of housing types and adequate supply of ho -sing to meet the existing and
future needs of city residents. Policy 2.2: Encourage infill developer nt and recycling of land to
provide adequate residential sites.
2) That the proposed development is in accordance with the purpos:s and objectives of this article
and the zone in which the site is located. As described previously, tile project site is in Downtown
Downey. The contemplated project is a 6 -story building housing 50 - affordable dwelling units with
100 parking spaces. The Downtown Specific Plan serves as the zoa_ing ordinance for the site and
its intent is to pull Downtown together by creating a distinct and invitkig district. Another purpose is
to induce Downey residents and others to return Downtown by intro -ucing interesting and
entertaining elements, such as residential and retail uses, restaurane3 and entertainment activities.
Moreover, the City's evaluation of the project indicates that it meets he intent of the Specific Plan.
That is, it will return people Downtown by increasing its permanent pulation; estimates indicate
that approximately 187 people will reside at the project [average fa ly size: 3.74 (U.S. Census
Bureau 2008) multiplied by 50 units].
3) That the proposed development's site plan and its design feature', including architecture and
landscaping, will integrate harmoniously and enhance the character -nd design of the site, the
immediate neighborhood and the surrounding areas of the City. Co °mporary describes the
project's architectural style and its elevations depict an attractive bui g (i.e., both Option 1 and 2)
that features two well- designed landscape amenities - - -a podium coin and and a roof garden —
which together total 7,050 square feet. Moreover, the proposed pr = . t represents a marked
improvement compared to the sites' existing improvements. It curre . supports a 2 -story 35,720
square foot commercial building that was constructed in 1951; the b ►ing has a dated appearance
and has been vacant for approximately four years. The project site i located in Downtown
Downey, which is transitioning into a more urban district, and the de ign and scale of the proposed
project is well suited for the affected site and will be compatible with e neighboring properties'
uses and improvements.
4) That th- . it- plan n location of the buildings, parking areas, sigr's, landscaping, luminaries
and o: ., - -to that proper consideration has been even to both the functional
as .e. �'' ;�Y. - ment. such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual
effe { r' r. , ' :' from the view of the public streets. The poject's contemplated
ar« "'
ustrates that consideration was given to the visual effects of the project from
the view of ad . • ` t public streets. The project as noted is a 6 -story iuilding with its highest
features mea -fit + ' 73'- 6" above finished grade. Given its height, tl-e project will not only be
visible to its n ' _ oring 2 Street properties, but a number of neart =- streets. Nonetheless, the
project is well ,. 'wned so it will have a beneficial visual effect on pa -sing street traffic. Further,
the spatial de. +f the components that comprise the site plan incl. - to that consideration was
given to the p _ _ 's functional aspects, such as pedestrian and veh lar circulation. Specifically,
pedestrian and vehicular conflicts are unlikely to occur because the trances to each mode are
located at opposite ends of the building, or at separate locations, as the case of Option "2 ".
Lastly, the project's landscape features are planned for areas that wi_ provide tenants with the
greatest benefit; the building's massing shields tenants from traffic ai d pedestrian traffic and
creates a private landscape space.
Page 15
l
5) That the proposed development will improve the community appe rance. by preventing extremes
of dissimilarity or monotony in new construction or alterations of facili �es. The development
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010 1
Contemporary as their architectural style (i.e., Fresh & Easy MarkeePorto's Bakery, Myrtle Plaza,
and Downey Gateway and Downey Dental projects). Yet, even thoh the proposed project and
neighboring developments have incorporated one version or anot . y,of the Contemporary style,
there's still a marked difference between them, which results in eac having its own unique style.
It's also worth noting that although the project's design is different i '►mparison to surrounding
developments, it can not be considered extreme.
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
proposal consists of two options; still, the buildings' elevations are
and Contemporary describes the proposed architectural style. The
two is their parking arrangement and a few interior differences, suc
room and the location of the roof top garden. The alternatives' ele
building that uses a number of design elements to achieve that eff
generous amount of articulation, using both symmetrical and asym
both horizontal and vertical elements as accent features and provid
and glass balcony doors. Also adding to the appearance is an inte
materials with contrasting finishes and colors. In regards to a des
developments, there are a number of recently -built or pending proj
6) That the site plan and design considerations shall tend to upgrad
neighborhood and surrounding areas with an accompanying better
public health, safety. comfort. and welfare. Developing either optio
positive impact on neighboring properties and their occupants. Fu
downtown businesses by purchasing goods and services, plus they
levels. Moreover, the development proposal represents a marked
respect to aesthetics in comparison to the affected site's existing im
commercial building that has been vacant for approximately four ye
was built in 1951 and designed as a single - purpose building for tele
it is difficult to re- purpose. The contemplated project on the other h
will provide housing for about 187 people.
7) That the proposed development's site plan and design features
features and materials in accordance with the requirements of Secti
Article IV of this code. The conditions of approval for Site Plan Revi
condition, which states the development's site plan and design feat
resistant materials.
2. DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION NO. 09-72. Zoning Ordinan
Bonus Ordinance, spells out the procedures and requirements the
evaluate affordable housing projects. It also provides the means by
bonuses and concessions to developers who want to develop afford
and very-low income households.
According to the application, the proposed project will provide high q
units for working families eaming between 30% and 60% of the are
Angeles County. It will consist of 50 affordable units, 35 of which ar
from 795 to 863 square feet, and fifteen 3- bedroom units measuring
3- bedroom units will have one and two baths, respectively. The app
estimates the project will take about 26 months to complete, beginni
the project's entitlements are presented to the City's decision make
is provided below:
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
Page 16
arly the same in both cases
imary difference between the
as location of the community
ions depict a handsome
They include providing a
trical design principles, using
g a large number of windows
ting mix of exterior building
style applied to neighboring
s that incorporated
property in the immediate
nt of conditions affecting the
s proposed will have a
tenants will support
help increase its activity
ange for the better with
ovements. A 2 -story
occupies the site to date; it
one switching equipment so
d is an attractive building that
include graffiti- resistant
4960 of Chapter 10 of
No. 09 -71 will include a
s will incorporate graffiti-
Section 9152, the Density
of Downey employs to
hich the City grants density
le dwelling units for lower
lity, income - restricted rental
median income for Los
- bedroom units, ranging
,002 square feet. The 2- and
nt, National CORE,
in November, 2010 when
The approximate schedule
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
• November, 2010 — City grants entitlements
• April, 2011 — Project awarded tax credits
• September, 2011 — Permits issued/construction begins
• January, 2013 — Project completed
As noted previously, National CORE, has filed two applications to thvelop the project: a density
bonus application, and the previously-discussed site plan review apIication. The density bonus
application consists of two parts: 1) a request for a density bonus 01111 units for the View
Apartment project; and 2) two concessions.
The first concession applies only to Option "1" and it's a request to a;:low the applicant to develop
25% of the project's onsite parking spaces as compact stalls instead of 15%, which is the
maximum permitted under the Downtown Specific Plan. The secon1 concession applies only to
Option "2" and it's a request to reduce the project's parking requirement from 1.5 spaces per unit to
1 space per unit. That is, reducing the project's parking requiremeni from 75 spaces to 50 spaces.
However, to offset the reduction, Option "2" includes two provisions.. First, the applicant shall
provide 50 tenant spaces at an offsite location within 200 feet of thejxoject site. Second, the
applicant shall provide a minimum of 44 public spaces to replace th spaces that the project will
displace and they also must be within 200 feet of the project site. B th provisions will be
incorporated as conditions of project approval.
A concession, according to Section 9152, "shall mean any reductiorEin development standards or
any modification of the zoning or architectural design requirements iecessary to facilitate the
construction of a residential development at the densities provided rr in Section 65915 of the
Government Code." Section 9152 goes on to state that when the d ision makers consider a
concession, the applicant must demonstrate that it will result in iden 'able, financially sufficient and
actual cost reductions to the project. In response, the applicant has ndicated, "the concessions
are necessary in order to ensure the financial viability of the develoc ent while providing the
highest quality construction and property management to the prope ." Without the concessions,
National CORE would have to construct another subterranean parki g level to satisfy the parking
requirements, which would be cost prohibitive. Further, the applicar- has submitted a pro forma
that shows the cost savings that the requested concessions will pro'de.
Section 9152 also states that a residential development is entitled tcpne concession for a project
that includes at least 5% of the units for income-restricted householc.g3; two concessions for a
project with at least 10% of the units for income-restricted household and three concessions
where at least 15% of the units are for income-restricted householdSi In the case of the project,
98% or 49 of the units will be income restricted under current Califo ia law, while the 50 unit will
be the manager's unit and non income restricted.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
Page 17
National CORE filed the density bonus application because the densgty ceilings imposed by the
site's land use classifications restrict the project to 39 dwelling units t9 units divided by .52 acres =
75 dwelling units per acre). The site's "Mixed Use" General Plan cattgory.allows a maximum of 75
dwelling units per acre. Likewise, the site is in the specific plan's FinZstone Boulevard Gateway
district and its maximum allowable density is also 75 dwelling units pt:r acre. The project's
proposed 50 units, by comparison, translate into 96 dwelling units p acre (50 units divided by .52
acres = 96 du/ac). Unfortunately, limiting the housing development tg. 39 units is not viable
financially, according to the applicant, because of the affordability gag between market-rate and
affordable housing. In light of the constraint, the applicant filed the dInsity bonus request for
eleven units.
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
Moreover, because 49 or 98% of the project's 50 units are designa d for income-restricted
households, the project is entitled to the ordinance's maximum den ity bonus, 35%, which converts
into a maximum allowable density of slightly more than 101 dwellin units per acre. (1.35 x 75 =
101.25). Thus, as the math shows, the requested bonus permits t development of the project's
96 dwelling units per acre.
In addition to adhering to the density requirement, the proposed prqect also complies with the
development standards of the Density Ordinance. The standards iw.clude the project's construction
quality and its laundry facilities, as underlined below:
• Construction Quality. The quality of exterior design and' verall quality of construction of
the affordable units shall meet all site. design and constr • ,. standards included in the
Municipal Code, including but not limited to compliance w f 11 design guidelines included
r.
in applicable specific plans or otherwise adopted by the Cd c ; iL
The contemplated development complies with both the Ar
Design Standards of the Downtown Specific Plan, as dis
Staff also believes that the project's Contemporary archite
design and will be a handsome addition to Downtown Do
construction quality, both the City's plan check and onsite
ensure that they adhere to the City's building codes.
• Laundry Facilities. Target units made available for rent s
for a clothes washer and dryer within the target unit or su
facilities to meet the needs of all tenants without connectio
According to the applicant, the project will have common I. ndry facilities, rather than the
units having their own washer and dryer connections; the r ntal units will occupy floors 2
through 6 and the floor plans show a laundry facility centra -located on each level. Also,
each facility will provide two washers and two dryers, whicl should be sufficient to meet
the tenants' needs.
There were also several other informational items about the project i were submitted as part of
the application; they include identifying the means of ensuring the cxlntinued affordability of the
units and specifying the methods the applicant will use to verify tenE4t incomes. Each item is
discussed in the following paragraphs.
With respect to ensuring the units continued affordability, all of the ppject's funding sources require
affordability restrictions in the regulatory agreements that will be recorded for the project. The units
will also be income restricted for a minimum of 55 years, with severu affordability covenants
recorded as liens on the property. Agencies providing financing for the project include, City of
Downey Community Development Commission funding, Los Angelei; County Community
Development Commission funding and Federal Low Income Housin Tax Credits. Further, tenant
household incomes will be verified on an annual basis and annual al_dits will be conducted to
document the ongoing financial state of the property. That audit will )e circulated to all funding
agencies for review on an annual basis.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
Page 18
ctural Standards and
d on pages 10 thru 12.
al style is exemplary of good
. In terms of the units'
ection processes will
include either connections
t on-site self-serve laundry
s in their dwelling units.
•
Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71
Density Bonus Housing Application No. 09-72
Density Bonus Application Findings
.1
As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the proposed project is ijigible for the requested
density bonus. Furthermore, it is entitled to the requested concess s for additional compact
parking and a reduction in parking requirements, plus it adheres to
standards. Therefore, Staff has developed the following findings in
Ordinance Section 9512.24(b) to support Density Bonus Applicatio
1) The application is eligible for a density bonus and any concessio requested; conforms to all
standards for affordability included in Section 9512; and includes a ' ancinq mechanism for all
implementation and monitorina costs. Under the Density Bonus 0 _ nance, the application is
eligible for both the requested density bonus and concessions due to the number of income -
restricted units that will be provided. Specifically, 98% percent or 49 will be income restricted.
With this percentage, both Options "1" and "2" are eligible for the maximum bonus under the
ordinance, 35 %, as well as the requested concessions: developing 25% of the project's parking
spaces as compact stalls and reducing the parking requirement to space per unit.
The project is funded by several public and private sources, inciudirg redevelopment housing set -
aside funds. Current state law requires that any multi - family and fa project to be funded by
redevelopment housing set -aside dollars must remain affordable to =ow income and very low
income households for 55 years. This affordability will be governed_hy a regulatory agreement for
the project and affordability covenants will be recorded against the itlroject's property.
One of the primary sources of funding for the project, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, requires
that the project be monitored and audited. Further, this funder requ- that the applicant certify, on
an annual basis, that the project is occupied by income - qualified ho = Beholds. The cost for
monitoring, certification, auditing, which is the responsibility of a pro_3ssional property management
company, will be paid from the project's cash flow. The line item forkproperty management fees is
contained in the cash flow section of the project's pro forma.
2) Any requested incentive or concession will result in identifiable. fi
cost reductions based upon appropriate financial analysis and docu
Section 9512.22. The requested concessions to develop 25% of th
spaces (Option "1") and decrease the parking requirement to one s
helps bridge the project's affordability gap. If the City of Downey d
concessions, the project would have to provide another level of sub
of Downey required parking. However, a second level of subterran
expensive. Therefore, the lack of concessions renders the project i
3) If
fin
la
not apply.
4) If the density bonus, incentive, or conces
care center. the approval body has made th
requested density bonus and concession is no
finding does not apply.
Page 19
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 2010
e ordinance's development
ccordance with Zoning
o. 09 -72.
1
ancially sufficient. and actual
=entation as described in
parking stalls as compact
ce per dwelling (Option "2 ")
s not grant the requested
rranean parking to meet City
n parking is prohibitively
easible.
_i I u_►r - • approval body has made the
s requested density bonus is not based on
ased all or in pzzrt on the inclusion of a day
included in Se4ion 9512.12(b). The project's
d on providing i day care center so this
RESOLUTION NO. 10- 2678
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 09-71, AN A
OF OPTIONS "1" AND "2" THAT INVOLVES THE D
IMPROVEMENTS OF A SIX-STORY, 50-UNIT MULTI
APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 8314 2 ST
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey
determine and declare that:
A. National Community Renaissance (the Applicant) filed
of Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71, a request c
alternatives, Options "1" and "2," to consider the design-
of a 6-story, 50-unit multi-family affordable apartment d
site at 8314 2" Street. The two options differ principal!
arrangements. Parking for Option "1" is provided onsit
"2" is provided onsite, as well as an offsite location with
site.
B. The Applicant also filed Density Bonus Application No.
the site plan review application. The density bonus ap
the project a density bonus of eleven (11) apartment u
allowable 39 dwelling units, thus increasing the project'
units. The density bonus application also includes req
concessions: Requests to increase the percentage of
from 15 percent to 25 percent (Option "1"), and reduce
from 1.5 spaces per unit to one (1) space (Option "2").
C. The .52-acre (22,540 square feet) project site is zoned
P
assessor parcel numbers 6254-020-914 and 6254-020-
SECTION 2. Having considered all of the oral and written evid
A. That the site plan is consistent with the goals and polici
General Plan and other applicable plans and policies a
Site Plan Review No. 09-71 is a request to develop a 6-
with 50 units for income-restricted households. The ap
alternatives --Options "1" and "2"—which primarily differ
arrangements. Parking for Option "1" will be provided o
E
OWNEY
PRISED
E
AMILY AFFORDABLE
ET, ZONED
ES RESOLVE AS
oes hereby find,
wntown Specific Plan
and designated "Mixed Use" on the General Plan's land se diagram.
etition seeking approval
prised of two (2)
nd onsite improvements
elopment on the .52-acre
n regards to parking
hile parking for Option
200 feet of the project
-72 in conjunction with
tion is a request to grant
above the project site's
uantity from 39 to 50
ts for two regulatory
pact parking spaces
parking requirement
D. The Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's Office identifie the project site as
2.
E. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public he ing on October 20, 2010
and after fully considering all oral and written testimony d facts and opinions
offered at the aforesaid public hearing, adopted Resolut, n No. 10-2678,
approving Site Plan Review No. 09-71.
ce presented to it at said
public hearing, the Planning Commission further finds, determi s and declares that:
embodied in the
ted by the Council.
ry apartment project
tion consists of two (2)
regards to their parking
e and occupy the
Resolution No. 10 -2678
Planning Commission
building's ground and subterranean levels. Option "2"
the ground level, but does not include subterranean le
level will accommodate 51 spaces, while the balance, a
will be provided at an offsite location within 200 feet of t
also includes providing a minimum of 44 public spaces
of the project site, to offset the public spaces that the pr
project site, as well as offsite parking areas, is located i
developing either alternative will implement a General P
encourages the development housing Downtown. Spe
the three areas in the community that's designated "Mix
where implementing the livable community concepts wil
due to its location and development pattern. For examp
project types such as residential projects adjacent to co
more livable community. Doing so will reduce the depe
providing convenient access to jobs, services and dwelli
building housing 50 affordable dwelling units with 100 p ..
Downtown Specific Phan serves as the zoning ordinanc
to pull Downtown together by creating a distinct and invi
purpose is to induce Downey residents and others to ret
introducing interesting and entertaining elements, such
uses, restaurants and entertainment activities. Moreov
the project indicates that it meets the intent of the spec!'!`'
Page 2
also provide parking on
I. Rather the ground
oximately 50 spaces,
project site. Option "2"
ite, also within 200 feet
ct will displace. The
owntown Downey and
policy and program that
ally, General Plan Policy
1.2.2 states, Focus on areas where implementing the livable community concepts
are most likely to have the most impact to set a catalyst for similar projects
elsewhere in the City. According to the General Plan, Downtown Downey is one of
d Use" and it's an area
have the biggest impact
, developing alternative
mercial uses will create a
dency on cars by
g units. Reducing the
use of cars will also lead to a reduction in the number of`:ehicle miles traveled,
which reduces traffic congestion and the effects of worsening air quality. The
General Plan Program that project development will imp--Iment is Program 1.2.2.3,
which states, Promote housing, mixed use housing, ana ether land uses that will
generate nighttime pedestrian traffic in the Downtown. '1 eveloping either option
will also implement the following Housing Element goal nd policy: Goal 2:
Encourage a variety of housing types and adequate sup;, ly of housing to meet the
existing and future needs of city residents. Policy 2.2: ourage infill
development and recycling of land to provide adequate sidential sites.
B. That the proposed development is in accordance with th_ purposes and objectives
of this article and the zone in which the site is located. Ps described previously,
the project site is in Downtown Downey. The contempt.. -ed project is a 6 -story
king spaces. The
or the site and its intent is
ng district. Another
rn Downtown by
residential and retail
the City's evaluation of
plan. That is, it will
return people Downtown by increasing its permanent population; estimates indicate
that approximately 187 people will reside at the project [= average family size: 3.74
(U.S. Census Bureau 2008) multiplied by 50 units].
C. That the proposed development's site plan and design features, including
architecture and landscaping, will integrate harmoniously and enhance the
character and design of the site, the immediate neighborhood and the surrounding
areas of the City. Contemporary describes the project's architectural style and its
elevations depict an attractive building, and that include=Options "1" and "2," that
features two well- designed landscape amenities —a poddm courtyard and a roof
garden —which together total 7,050 square feet. Moreo —r, the proposed project
represents a dramatic improvement compared the site's «xisting improvements. It
currently supports a 2 -story 35,720 square foot commerdal building that was
Site Plan Review No. 09 -71 — National CO1E
-sr
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
L
constructed in 1951; the building has a dated appearance and has been vacant for
approximately four years. The project site is located in Downtown Downey, which
is transitioning into a more urban district, and the design and scale of the proposed
project is well suited for the affected site and will be i
co n patible with the
neighboring properties' uses and improvements.
I
D. That the site plan and location of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping,
luminaries and other site features indicate that proper consideration has been
given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile
and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effects of the development from the view
of the public streets. The project's contemplated architectural style illustrates that
consideration was given to the visual effects of the project from the view of
adjacent public streets. The project as noted is a 6-story building with its highest
features measuring 73'-6" above finished grade. Given its height, the project will
not only be visible to its neighboring 2' Street properties, but a number of nearby
streets. Nonetheless, the project is well designed so it will have a beneficial visual
effect on passing street traffic. Further, the spatial design of the components that
comprise the site plan indicate that consideration was given to the project's
functional aspects, such as pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Specifically,
pedestrian and vehicular conflicts are unlikely to occur because the entrances to
each mode are located at opposite ends of the building, or at separate locations,
as is the case with Option "2". Lastly, the project's landscape features are planned
for the areas that will provide tenants with the greatest benefit; the building's
massing shields tenants from traffic and pedestrian traffic and creates private
landscape space.
E. That the proposed development will improve the comm
preventing extremes of dissimilarity or monotony in new
alterations of facilities. The development proposal cons
buildings' elevations are nearly the same in both cases
describes the proposed architectural style. The primary
two is their parking arrangement and a few interior diffe
of the community room and the location of the roof top
elevations depict a handsome building that uses a num
achieve that effect. They include providing a generous
using both symmetrical and asymmetrical design princi
and vertical elements as accent features and providing
and glass balcony doors. Also adding to the appearanc
exterior building materials with contrasting finishes and
design style applied to neighboring developments, there
built or pending projects that incorporated Contempora
ity appearance by
onstruction or in
ts of two options; still, the
nd Contemporary
ifference between the
nces, such as the location
rden. The alternatives'
r of design elements to
mount of articulation,
s, using both horizontal
large number of windows
is an interesting mix of
lors. In regards to a
re a number of recently-
as their architectural style
(i.e., Fresh & Easy Market, Porto's Bakery, Myrtle Plaza 7and Downey Gateway
and Downey Dental projects). Yet, even though the pro, osed project and
neighboring developments have incorporated one versic or another of the
Contemporary architectural style, there is still a marked ifference between them,
which results in each having its own unique style. It's aIo worth noting that
although the project's design is different in comparison t= surrounding
developments, it can not be considered extreme.
•
•
Site Plan Review No. 09-71 — National CO E
Page 3
MP%
EMI
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
F. That the site plan and design considerations shall tend t7 upgrade property in the
immediate neighborhood and surrounding areas with an-accompanying betterment
of conditions affecting the public health, safety, comfort, nd welfare.
Developing either option as proposed will have a positivj impact on neighboring
properties and their occupants. Future tenants will sup
by purchasing goods and services, plus they'll help incrc
Moreover, the development proposal represents a mark
with respect to aesthetics in comparison to the affected
improvements. A 2-story commercial building that has
approximately four years occupies the site to date; it wa
designed as a single-purpose building for telephone swi
difficult to re-purpose. The contemplated project on the
building that will provide housing for about 187 people.
1
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Relution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20 day of Octobeg, 2010.
rt downtown businesses
use its activity levels.
d change for the better
ite's existing
en vacant for
built in 1951 and
hing equipment so it is
ther hand is an attractive
G. That the proposed development's site plan and its desig features will include
graffiti-resistant features and materials in accordance wi ti the requirements of
Section 4960 of Chapter 10 of Article IV of this code. T1 conditions of approval
for Site Plan Review No. 09-71 will include a condition, ..hich states the
development's site plan and design features will incorpo =te graffiti-resistant
materials.
SECTION 3. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 anA 2 of this resolution, the
Planning Commission hereby approves Site Plan Review Applicition No. 09-71, subject to
the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Louis Moral s, Chairman
City Plannin= Commission
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Reso tion adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meetimt thereof held on the 20th
day of October, 2010 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES;
ABSENT:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Site Plan Review No. 09-71 — National COFE
Page 4
Theresa DoOlahue, Secretary
City Plannin Commission
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
PLANNING DIVISION
EXHIBIT A--Conditions of Approve I
Site Plan Review Application No. O971
1. Site Plan Review No. 09-71 is an application involving tir design and onsite
improvements of a 6-story, 50-unit multi-family affordabIt apartment development
that consists of two alternatives, Options "1" and "2", as hown on the approved
plans dated October 10, 2010. The 6-story buildings aciompanying each are
nearly the same, except for their parking arrangements. !Both options will provide
100 project parking spaces. Option "1" will provide 100
level and subterranean level parking), whereas Option "
spaces, while the balance will be provided offsite, but w
site. Deviations or exceptions from the plans for Option
5. The applicant shall submit landscape and hardscape pia
landscape architect licensed in the State of California, to
Staff for review and approval and the plans shall be impl
Staff issues the Certificate of Occupancy for the project.
6. The Applicant shall be assessed a fee for the acquisitio
total building valuation, pursuant to the Art in Public PIac
shall be one percent (1%) of the building valuation as co
building valuation data as established by the City of Do
maximum fee will be set at one hundred and fifty thousa
Where the installation of art is impractical or inaccessiblE
contribute the assessed fee to the Art in Public Places F
Site Plan Review No. 09-71 — National COR.-7
Page 5
paces onsite (i.e., ground
" will provide 51 onsite
hin 200 feet of the project
"1" and "2" shall not be
permitted without the approval of the City Planning Com ission.
2. The Planning Commission shall retain jurisdiction to am 1 or add conditions with
a public notice and public hearing to assure compatibilitv with the purpose and
intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and to p the health, safety
and welfare.
3. All conditions of Site Plan Review No. 09-71 shall be coo.tplied with before this site
plan review application becomes valid.
4. If City approval is contingent upon any changes to the a :plication's plans as
submitted, the Applicant shall submit three (3) copies of : ohe revised plans,
incorporating all approved amendments, overlays, moditmtions, etc. to the
Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permilt.
s, prepared by a licensed
he Planning Division
mented before the City
of artwork based on the
s Ordinance. The fee
nputed using the latest
ey Building Official. The
d dollars ($150,000.00).
onsite, the Applicant will
nd.
7. The applicant shall incorporate anti-graffiti elements into he building's design, such
as non-porus coatings on exterior wall surfaces, plant mteriaIs, and anti-graffiti
film on windows, subject to the approval of the City Planmw.
8. Site Plan Review Application No. 09-71 shall not becomeffective until the City
Council approves Density Bonus Housing Application Ne.2 09-72.
1
9. Tandem parking spaces developed for Option "1" shall bi assigned to a single unit.
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
10. For Option "2," the applicant shall provide 51 onsite gro d-level parking spaces,
plus another 49 spaces at an offsite location within 200 - et of the project site. The
offsite spaces shall be available for project parking (i.e., .enant and guest parking)
before the City issues the Certificate of Occupancy for tiie 6-story, 50-unit
apartment project.
11. For Option "2," the applicant shall develop a minimum ci! 44 public parking spaces
at an offsite location that is within 200 feet of the project The offsite public
spaces shall be available before the City issues the Cerificate of Occupancy for
the 6-story, 50-unit apartment project..
BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION
12. A separate sewer line shall be constructed to the buildin to the standards of the
City Engineering and Building and Safety Divisions or a ewer covenant shall be
recorded with the Los Angeles County recorder and a cepy filed with the City
Planning Division.
13. The owner/applicant shall install all electrical and telephne utilities underground.
14. Obtain all necessary plan approvals and permits.
15. The project shall be designed per the 2007 California C es, including Title 24
Energy and Accessibility Codes.
PUBLIC WORKS-- UTILITIES
16. The owner/applicant shall provide that the standards of ilnprovements, construction
materials, and methods of construction shall be in confo_fnance with the Standard
Plans and Specification for Public Works Construction ad as modified by the City
of Downey's Standard Plans and Specifications.
17. The owner/applicant shall install all utilities underground!
18. The owner/applicant shall furnish and install a new (min. dedicated potable
water service line, meter, and meter box.
i
19. The owner/applicant shall furnish and install a (min. 1-in JO dedicated water
service line, meter, and meter box for the landscaping irrgation system.
20. The owner/applicant shall furnish and install backflow d ice(s) in accordance with
the Department of Public Works and the State and Cou y Department of Health
Services requirements.
21. The owner/applicant shall confirm availability of adequaq fire flow and pressure in
accordance with the Department of Public Works and Duovney Fire Department
requirements.
22. The owner/applicant shall furnish and install the public p table water
improvements, including extension and/or replacement ex existing mains and
I
Site Plan Review No. 09-71 — National CO E
Page 6
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
associated facilities, necessary to provide adequate fire Ow and pressure to the
site.
1
23. The owner/applicant shall furnish and install fire hydrantti) and dedicated fire
protection lateral(s) including backflow devices, fire devrtment connections and
other appurtenances as required by the Department of Riblic Works and the
Downey Fire Department. Such improvements may inside removal and/or
replacement of existing fire hydrants, laterals, backflow devices, and associated
facilities with new facilities to current Downey standards !Ind materials. Backflow
devices, fire department connections, and associated apurtenances are to be
located on private property and shall be readily accessibie for emergency and
inspection purposes.
24. The owner/applicant shall provide and record utility easeinent(s) for access to, and
inspection and maintenance of, public water lines, metes - and appurtenances, and
backflow devices.
25. The owner/applicant shall furnish and install sanitary se er lateral(s) and
associated facilities within the public right of way in acco dance with the
requirements of the Department of Public Works.
26. The owner/applicant shall identify the point(s) of connec4on for the sanitary sewer
lateral(s) and confirm that sufficient capacity exists in tht5publicly owned facilities in
conformance with the requirements of the Department o7Public Works and the
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (CSD IAC).
27. The owner/applicant shall furnish and install the public sanitary sewer
improvements, including extensi ii replacement cl existing mains and
associated facilities, necessary t ide adequate cap city for the site as
approved by the Department of • Works and CSDL,--__C.
28. The owner/applicant is responsi coordinating with, and payment(s) to the
City and CSDLAC for all sanitary r connection and rpacity charges.
29. The owner/applicant shall obtain all necessary plan appr m vals and permits.
30. The owner/applicant shall provide improvement plan myl rs, record drawing
mylars, and record drawing digital (AutoCAD — latest edi n) files in accordance
with the requirements of the Department of Public Works hat have been signed by
a civil engineer licensed in the State of California. Final .7pproval of new utilities
shall be dependent upon submittal and approval of recor: drawing mylars and
scanned, uncompressed TIFF images of record drawing:.-;on a CD/DVD-ROM
media per City's GIS Requirements.
31. Utility plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works
prior to the issuance of the grading plan permit.
Site Plan Review No. 09-71 — National COI
Page 7
1
1
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
1
32. The project shall be designed per the 2007 California C es, including Title 24
Energy and Accessibility Codes.
PUBLIC WORKS -- ENGINEERING
33. The owner/applicant shall execute a public street agree ent for the future
improvements along Second Street to the standards of e City Engineering
Division.
34. The owner/applicant hereby consents to the annexatiortpf the property into the
Downey City Lighting Maintenance District in accordan with Division 15 of the
Streets and Highways Code, and to incorporation or an xation into a new or
existing Benefit Assessment or Municipal Improvement istrict in accordance with
Division 10 and Division 12 of the Streets and Highway ode and/or Division 2 of
the Government Code of the State of California.
35. The owner/applicant shall construct the following roadw
a. Ornamental street lights
b. construction of parkway landscape
c. Installation of street trees
36. The owner/applicant shall install all utilities underground__
37. Show refuse/recycle enclosure specifications (location,
38. The owner/applicant shall be required to complete a co
(C&D) waste management plan per Article V, Chapter
Code.
1
improvements:
).
truction & demolition
f the Downey Municipal
39. The owner/applicant shall submit an engineered gradin I * an and/or hydraulic
calculations and site drainage plan for the site (prepare nd sealed by a
registered civil engineer in the State of California) for a.• oval by the Engineering 0
Division and Building and Safety Division. All lot(s) sha ot have less than one
(1%) percent gradient on any asphalt or non-paved surf e, or less than one
quarter (1/4%) percent gradient on any concrete surfaca Provide the following
information on plans: topographic site information, inclui g elevations,
dimensions/location of existing/proposed public improv: ents adjacent to project
(i.e. street, sidewalk, parkway and driveway widths, cat basins, pedestrian
ramps); the width and location of all existing and propos easements, the
dimensions and location of proposed dedications; (for a y dedications, show
elevations of the four corners of the dedication and cent ine of alley, existing and
proposed underground utility connections); the location, epth and dimensions of
potable water, reclaimed water and sanitary sewer lines hemical and hazardous
material storage, if any, including containment provision and the type of existing
use, including the gross square footage of the building, d its disposition.
40. The owner/applicant shall construct/install curb, gutter, s4ewaIk, disabled ramps,
portland cement concrete driveway approaches, thee (3 24-inch box with 2-inch
diameter trunk) street trees, and pavement along propej frontage to the
standards of the Department of Public Works. Broken, even, or sub-standard
Site Plan Review No. 09-71 — National CO
Page 8
1
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
curb, gutter, sidewaik, driveway, disabled ramps and pa
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Co
Inspection Office at (562) 904-7110 to have these areas
initiating a grading plan. The owner/applicant shall obta
approvals and permits and shall provide that the standa
construction materials, and methods of construction sha
the Standard Plans and Specification for Public Works
modified by the City of Downey's Standard Plans and 5
45. The owner/applicant shall provide that all construction g
project in the public right of way to be removed.
46. The owner/applicant shall provide that no easements of
any portion of the subdivision to any agency, utility or o
public), except to the City of Downey prior to recordati
owner/applicant grant easements in the name of th
a. Vehicular easements
b. Walkway easements
c. Drainage easements
d. Utility easements
FIRE DEPARTMENT
47. Downev Municipal Code Section 3320 (Over 55 feett
nta
�
Site Plan Review No. O9-71— National CORE-
Page 9
mert, shall bereplaced
a ct1he Public Works
� entified just prior to
all necessary p!an
s of improvements,
be in conformance with
notpUction and as
cifications.
41. All driveway approaches shall be as wide as the d dd isle they
serve. All unused driveways shall be removed and recoItructed with fulI-height
curb, gutter and sidewalk. N|
42. The owner/applicant shall instalf pavement, which consi of a minimum section of
4^ thick aggregate base, and a minimum 2-1/2^ thick ao alt concrete pavement.
43. The owner/applicant shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act; the General
Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (GCASP) of the State Water Resources
Control Board; the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation PIan (SUSMP); and
Ordinance 1142 of the Downey Municipal Code (DMC). Furthermore, the
owner/applicant shall provide a design that conveys all onsite drainage over a
vegetative swale a minimum distance of 20 feet and retain the first 0.75 inches of
drainage onsite using either surface detention basins or below grade facilities with
flow in excess ofthe first 0.75 inches allowed to overflow by underground drains to
an existing Los Angeles County Public Works storm drain so as to comply with the
requirements of the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and
Municipal Separate Storm Water System; and is required to Certify and append
Public Works standard "Attachment A" to all construction and grading plans as
required by the LACoDPW Stormwater Quality Management PIan (SQMP).
44. The owner/applicant shall instal! a sewer main and sewe lateral to the front
property line and shall provide that the desi nandinmpnoenmentamfaevveraohaU
be to the standards of the City Engineering Division. Se::tic systems are not
acceptable.
ffiti created as part of this
ny type be granted over
nization or
f the tract map. The
City shall include:
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
A. NFPA 101 "Life Safety Code" Compliance. Al! buildirlgs having floors used for
human occupancy located more than fifty-five feet (55') -ove the lowest level of
Fire Department vehicle access are considered high-rise Campus
Facilities and "Special Structures" as addressed in NFPI 101, are facilities which
include open structures, towers, water-surrounded struc4ires, piers, underground
and windowless structures, high-rise buildings, membrar structures, tents,
covered mall buildings or traditional occupancies that ari located in special or
unusual structures, shall conform to the requirements of his section in addition to
other recognized codes and standards.
48. Mains and Hydrants
A. Mains and hydrants shall be in service prior to combi I stible building material
being allowed on site.
B. Hydrant spacing shall not exceed 300 feet for industijal, commercial, high
density or multi-unit residential areas. 180 feet is th maximum distance from
any point on street or frontage to a hydrant.
C. Hydrants located on the opposite side of streets overi80 feet in width shall not
be used to satisfy the requirements for hydrant spaci gg.
D. Additional public hydrants may be required dependin=5. upon required fire flows,
street width, center dividers or other physical barrieft existing or anticipated
traffic volume.
E. The required fire flow for the building or facility will be1determined by the
Downey Fire Department using the California Fire CCde (CFC) Appendix III-A.
49. Fire Depa
ent Access Roads
A. Fire apparatus access roads are required for every f ility, building or portion of
a building when any portion of the facility or any porti n of the first story is
located more than 150 feet from the fire apparatus a ess as measured by an
approved route and around the exterior of the facility r building.
B. Access to construction sites with combustible materis on site shall be
provided with an "all weather" surface complying with requirements for fire
lanes.
C. An all weather road can consist of a compacted bas of crushed granite (or
equivalent) of sufficient thickness capable of support g heavy fire apparatus
(20 tons). The material should be laid on dry, undistL or compacted soil.
D. Dead ends. Access roads greater than 150 feet in le gth shall have an
approved means for turning around fire apparatus. (te Appendix A)
E. Fire department Knox Box system shall be installed.
50. Fire Protection Systems (Under 55 feet) See CFC Article 10
A. An Automatic Fire Extinguishing System shall be inst Iled throughout in
accordance with NFPA 13.
Site Plan Review No. 09-71 — National CORE
Page 10
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
B. Class | Automatic Wet Standpipe System shall be iritalled.
C. Fire protection systems, including sprinklers, «t8ndpbem.finaextinguishing
system and fire alarm systems shall be reviewed by pe Fire Department and
require a City of Downey Fire Permit.
51. Fire Alarm Systems See CFC Article 10
A. All o inklered buildings must be protected with an a fire alarm system.
Sprinklered and non-s ink|enedbui|dingnrmquiredt;haweanapprmvedfine
alarm system must provide for the alerting of ALL o of the building;
visible devices must be provided at each audibte de'ice in areas as determined
by the Chief. Smoke detection shalt be installed bel;w alt finished ceilings and
in accordance with recognized standards and man cturers specifications.
Plans to be subm,tted through Buitding a d Safety and shall comply
with 2007 Catifornia Fire Code, 2007 Catifornia Builclng ng Code, current Downey
Municipat Code Ordinances and any other pertinent equirements to be
determined at time of plan submission and review.
52. Elevators
A. Elevators installed in building(s) as required by the Milding Department shall
be appropriately sized to accommodate both emerg cy medical staff
(minimum of three (3) persons plus patient) and ass ciated local emergency
equipment such as gurneys and medical supplies, a described in Section
3002.4 of the 2007 California Building Code. (Ord. 1;24 § 3, adopted 12-14-07)
53. Requirements for In Building Communication Systenm
A. Except as otherwise provided, no person shall erect,construct, change the use
of or provide an addition of more than twenty parcan0/2O%\bJ any building or
structure or any part thereof, or cause the same to done which fails to
support adequate radio coverage for the City of D di communications
oymtern, including but not limited to firefighters and MN |ice officers. In-building
oonmmnunicadonmvvi||bo provided for all mubte�anem structures constructed
after passage of the ordinance codified in this chaptEc. For purposes of this
section, adequate radio coverage shalt inctude alt of he foliowing:
1. A minimum signal strength of -95 dbm available ill ninety percent (90%) of
the area of each floor of the building when transmitte1 from the closest City of
Downey radio communications system site;
2. A minimum signal strength of -95 dbm received the closest City of
Downey radio communications system site when tra mitted from ninety
percent (90%) of the area of each floor of the buildin,,
3. The frequency range which must be supported sII be the current band of
frequencies used by the City of Downey; and
4. AOneHundnedPmncgnt(1OO96) Re|iabi|ityFacto/ When measuring the
performance of a bi-directional anmp|Uier, signal otnan measurements are
Site Plan Review No. U9-T1— National COPE
Page 11
1
Resolution No. 10-2878
Planning Commission
based on one input signal adequate to obtain a maxi.num continuous operating
output level.
1
54. Amplification Systems Allowed. Buildings and structu s which cannot support
the required level of radio coverage shall be equipped xvithany of the following in
order to achieve the required adequate radio coverage: 7. radiating cable system or
aninterna|mu|dp|ean1ennaayatemxvithorvvithoutFCC~ypeaocepdedbi-
dinactiona| 800 MHz amplifiers as needed. If any part of tie installed system or
oyatennacontains an electrically pom/eredconnpVnmnt.th� system shall be capable
of operating Vnan independent battery and/or generatu ystem for a period of at
Ieast twelve (12) hours without external power input. Thc: battery system shall
automatically charge in the presence of an external povv=r input. If used, bi
directional amplifiers shall include filters to reduce adjacnt frequency interference.
These filters shall be tuned so that they will be 35 dbm blow the City of Downey
frequencies.
55. Testing Procedures.
A. Acceptance TeotPnocadune.VVhen an in-building rAioavatenn is required,
and upon completion of installation, b will be the bui|din0owner's
responsibility to hawe, the radio system tested to eisure that two-way
coverage on each floor of the building is a minimur of ninety percent (90%).
Each floor of the building shall be divided into a gric of approximately twenty
(20) equal areas. A maximum of two (2) nonadjacalit areas will be allowed to
fail the teaL In the event that three (3) of the areas jail the test, in order to be
more statistically accurate, the floor may b divideci into forty (40) equal
areas. A maximum of four (4) nonadjacent allowed to fail the
test. After the forty (40) area test, if the system co s to fail, it will be the
building owner's responsibility to have the system Aened to meet the ninety
percent (90%) coverage requirement. The test sha be conducted using a
Motorola MTS 2000 or equivalent, portable radio, 1a|king through the City of
Downey radio communications syat ifi b the h h having
jurisdiction. A spot located approximately in the ce er of a grid area will be
selected for the test, then the radio will be keyed t verify tmxJ(2) xvay
communications to and from the outside of the bui| ing through the City of
Downey Radio Communications System. Once the:soot has been oe|ected,
prospecting for a better spot within the grid area vviI not be permitted.
1. The gain values of alt amplifiers shall be measu - and the test
measurement results shall be kept on file with the LLilding owner so that the
measurements can be verified each year during thevannua| tests. In the event
that the measurement results become Iost, the buil ; ing owner will be required
to rerun the acceptance test to reestablish the gain"/a1ueo.
2. As part of the installation, a spectrum analyzer c other suitable test
equipment shall be utilized to insure that spurious �aciUadiona are not being
generated by the subject bi-directional amplifier (B to coupling (lack
of sufficient isolation) between the input and output systems. This test will be
conductedattimeofinata||ebVnandaubaequentamUm|inopectiona.
Site Plan Review No. 09- 1—NaUono|CORE
Page 12
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
B. Annual Tests. When an in-building radio system i i
_required, it shall be the
building owner's responsibility to have all active cc. of the system,
such as amplifiers and power supplies and backup batteries tested to a
minimum of once every twelve (12) months. Amplifiers shall be tested to
ensure that the gain is the same as it was upon iniial installation and
acceptance. Backup batteries and power supplies, hall be tested under load
of a period of one hour to verify that they will prop4rly operate during an
actual power outage. If within the one hour test pel iod, and in the opinion of
the testing technician, the battery exhibits symptoms of failure, the test shall
be extended for additional one hour periods until t e integrity of the battery
can be determined. All other active components s III be checked to
determine that they are operating within the manu :cturers specifications for
the intended purpose.
C. Five (5) Year Tests. In addition to the annual test, i shall be the building
owner's responsibility to perform a radio coverage est a minimum of once
every five (5) years to ensure that the radio systerr continues to meet the
requirements of the original acceptance test.
D. Qualifications of Testing Personnel. Personnel cofl
shall be qualified to perform the work. All tests sha
documented and signed by a person in possessio
or a current technician certification issued by the
Communications Officials International (APCO) or
Communications Industry Association (PCIA). All t
retained on the inspected premises by the building
submitted to the Fire Department Officials.
ucting radio system tests
be conducted,
of a current FCC license,
sociated Public-Safety
e Personal
st records shall be
wner and a copy
56. Field Testing
Police and Fire Personnel, after providing reasonable nclice to the owner or his or
her representative, shall have the right to enter onto the property to conduct field
testing to be certain that the required level of radio cover ge is present.
57. Requirement for Fire Safety During Construction of il ertain Wood Frame
•
Buildings
/
is
,. .
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply only to a 'vibes occurring during
the construction of certain wood frame buildings as pecified herein. Nothing
contained in this chapter shall be construed to alte such building occupancy
standards or fire protection measures for wood fra e or other construction
methods as may otherwise be set forth in this code
No person shall engage in any aspect of constructitAn on a large or major
wood frame building project, or permit or authorize zny such construction to
occur, except in full compliance with this chapter.
Site Plan Review No. 09-71 — National COF-f.
Page 13
i
1
1
1
11
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
1
The property owner, as identified on the applicatio for a building permit for a
large or major wood frame building project, shall b liable for full compliance
with this chapter.
B. The Fire Chief or responsible fire code official and he Chief Building Official
are authorized to, from time to time, as necessary implement this chapter,
issue, review and revise administrative regulations o implement the
provisions of this chapter, including but not limited jo regulations concerning
the required content of construction fire protection Ilans and the manner in
which fire safety officer duties are to be performed
C. The definitions contained in this part shall govern the interpretation of this
chapter. Where terms are not specifically defined i ff this chapter, the
definitions contained in Title 24 of this code shall cntrol.
58. Building Height. "Building height" for the purpose of thi chapter only, shall mean
the vertical distance above a reference datum, measure to the highest point of the
coping of a flat roof, or to the deck line of a mansard rooi, or to the average height
of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The refi datum shall be
selected by either of the following, whichever yields the‘ireatest height of building:
(1) The elevation of the highest natural ground surface vIthin a five-foot (5')
horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building when the highest such natural
ground surface is not more than ten feet (10') above the lowest grade; or (2) An
elevation ten feet (10') higher than the lowest grade wh the natural ground
surface described in subsection (1) is more than ten fee (10') above the lowest
grade.
1
59. Construction Fire Protection Plan. "Construction fire otection plan" means a
document which specifies measures and practices to be ncorporated into the
construction process to minimize the potential for the oci urrence and spread of
fires, and to facilitate firefighting efforts during building cd nstruction.
60. Exposed Wood Framing, "Exposed wood framing" mess the area of a large or
major wood frame building project that is enclosed, in wl or in part, by wood
stud framing and decking of the floor or roof above. Attic. not designated for
occupancy, balconies open to the sky and other similar men space are not
included in this square footage calculation. For the purpu of measuring total
square footage of wood framing, any adjacent ongoing WO od frame construction is
considered to be within the project when adjacent structg. are separated by less
than sixty feet (60') of open air.
1
61. Fire Safety Officer. "Fire safety officer" means an individual employed on a
construction job site whose job function is to minimize th potential for the
occurrence and spread of fires in accordance with the re7uirements of this chapter
and the approved construction fire protection plan. The cties of a fire safety officer
shall be in addition to, and do not supersede, the duties If any contractor or
individual engaging in activities which have the potential 10 cause the occurrence
or spread of fire, including but not limited to the duties spcified in Chapter 26 of
the 2007 California Fire Code, as adopted in this code. =
Site Ran Review No. 09-71 — National COnE
Page 14
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
63. Large Wood Frame Building Proiect. "Large wood fra
a building project utilizing exposed wood framing in the
more attached dwelling units, or construction exceeding
(50,000) square feet.
64. Major Wood Frame Building Project. "Major wood fra
wood frame building project which will either:
67. Specific Requirements.
A. No building permit shall be issued which allows t
wood frame construction on a large or major wood fra
the Fire Chief or responsible Fire Code Official has pr
a construction fire protection plan for the project.
B. Construction fire protection plans for a large or
project shall state how the requirements of this ordina
requirements shall be met during construction of the
protection plans for major wood frame building project
how off-hours security will be addressed, and how co
Site Plan Review No. 09-71 — National CO
Page 15
62. Hot Work. "Hot work" means construction activities inclding, but not limited to,
cutting, welding, use of open torch, brazing, and glass Lowing, which are regulated
by Chapter 26 of the 2007 California Fire Code, as adopted in this code.
A. Exceed two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) sq are feet; or
ne building project" means
onstruction of fifteen or
a total of fifty thousand
e building project" is large
B. Exceed two hundred thousand (200,000) squarefeet if the project exceeds
fifty feet (50') in height
65. Maximum Allowable Exposed Wood Framing Limit. Vaximum allowable
exposed wood framing limit" means:
i
A. Two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) square fe ; or
I
B. Two hundred thousand (200,000) square feet fo a large wood frame
building project which exceeds fifty feet (50') in heigh
66. Mitigating Fire Protection Barriers. "Mitigating fire protection barrier" means at
least one (1) layer of five-eighths-inch (5/8") gypsum blr or other fire resistive
blocking located at the end of a fire resistive area or se ration wall or party wall,
and installed such that the mitigating fire protection barrizN and fire resistive
wall(s) enclose area(s) of not less than ten thousand (1C square feet and not
more than fifty thousand (50,000) square feet.
e commencement of
;le building project, unless
;vided written approval of
or wood frame building
ce and all other fire safety
oject. Construction fire
shall, in addition, state
truction sequencing,
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
including the installation of mitigating fire protection barriers, will be utilized to
minimize the potential for the occurrence and spread ()f fire.
C. No person shall engage in, permit, authorize or z-.71low any aspect of
construction on any project for which a construction f e protection plan has been
approved unless the Fire Chief or responsible Fire Ctle Official has provided
written approval of a fire protection plan for the projecl
D. No person shall engage in, permit, authorize or How any aspect of
construction on any project for which a construction f4e protection plan has been
approved except in full compliance with the approved construction fire protection
plan for the project.
E. The approved construction fire protection plan s all be a condition of the
building permit and a copy of the plan shall be maint ned on site at all times
during construction of the project.
Fire Safety Officer Requirements.
A. No person shall perform, permit, authorize or aIkw any hot work on any
large or major wood frame building project, after wool framing has commenced,
unless a Fire Safety Officer is present on the project te at all times while hot
work is being performed.
B. A Fire Safety Officer shall monitor, confirm and thcument the following:
1. That a fire watch as required by Chapter :4 of the 2007 California
Fire Code, as adopted in this code;
2. That storage, use and handling of flamm ble liquids conforms to all
Federal, State and local, legal and adminptrative requirements;
3. That construction debris is promptly remwed from the project site;
4. That fire protection equipment, including fre extinguishers, fire
hydrants, standpipes, and other fire servile connections, are in
place and operational, as required by la or specified in the
approved construction fire protection pla
5. That mitigating fire protection barriers ar in place on any major
wood frame building project, in accordant with this ordinance and
the construction sequencing requirement: of the approved
construction fire protection plan;
I
Site Plan Review No. 09 — National CO E
Page 16
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
Basic Fire Protection Facilities.
B. No person shall commence, permit, authorize or
engage in, permit, authorize or allow any constr
commencement of wood frame construction on
frame building project, unless all fire protection
extinguishers, fire hydrants, standpipes and oth
Mitigating Fire Protection Barriers. No person shall c
or allow any construction activity on any major wood fra
mitigating fire protection barriers are in place and opera
the approved construction fire protection plan, to mainta
the applicable maximum allowable exposed wood frami
Site Plan Review No. 09-71 — National CO
Page 17
6. That such other requirements relating to e safety have been met, •
as may be specified in this code, in the r ulations adopted
pursuant to this chapter, or in the approv construction fire
protection plan.
or
A. No person shall commence, permit, authorize or
engage in any construction activity after the co .:
construction on a large or major wood frame bui
weather access road is in place, meeting the rer-
of the 2007 California Fire Code, or such other f
requirements as may be specified in the constru
the project, or in any development or building pe`z
place and functional.
How wood framing or
encement of wood frame
ng project, unless an all-
irements of Section 1410
apparatus access
ion fire protection plan for
it for the project, are in
How wood framing or
ion activity after the
arge or major wood
ipment, including fire
ire service connections,
are in place and operational, as required by law i specified in the
approved construction fire protection plan.
tinue, permit, authorize
building project, unless
nal, in accordance with
the project at or below
limit.
Resolution No. 10-2678
Planning Commission
Attachment A
Storm Water Pollution Control Requirements for Co
Minimum Water Quality Protection Requirements for All D
Projects/Certification Statement
The following is intended as an attachment for construction an grading plans and
represent the minimum standards of good housekeeping which nust be implemented on
all construction sites regardless of size.
O Eroded sediments and other pollutants must be retaTned on site and may not
be transported from the site via sheetflow, swales, a ea drains, natural
drainage courses or wind.
O Stockpiles of earth and other construction related rrAterials must be
protected from being transported from the site by t4 forces of wind or
water.
Fuels, oils, solvents and other toxic materials must e stored in accordance
with their listing and are not to contaminate the soil _nd surface waters. All
approved storage containers are to be protected froi the weather. Spills
must be cleaned up immediately and disposed of in proper manner. Spills
may not be washed into the drainage system.
• Non-storm water runoff from equipment and vehicle vashing and any other
activity shall be contained at the project site. •
Excess or waste concrete may not be washed into tl public way or any
other drainage system. Provisions shall be made to .?.tain concrete wastes
on site until they can be disposed of as solid waste.
O Trash and construction related solid wastes must bedeposited into a
covered receptacle to prevent contamination of rainwater and dispersal by
wind.
O Sediments and other materials may not be tracked fipm the site by vehicle
traffic. The construction entrance roadways must betstabilized so as to
inhibit sediments from being deposited into the pub way. Accidental
depositions must be swept up immediately and may - lot be washed down by
rain or other means. ;
Any slopes with disturbed soils or denuded of vegetAion must be stabilized
so as to inhibit erosion by wind and water.
0 Other
As the project owner or authorized agent of the owner, I hae read and understand
the requirements listed above, necessary to control storm later pollution from
sediments, erosion, and construction materials, and I certifj that I will comply with
these requirements.
Project Name:
Project Address:
Print Name
Signature
(Owner or authorized agent of the owner)
Da =_.?.
(Owner or authorized agent of tie owner)
Site Plan Review No, 09-71 - National CORE
Page 18
1
truction Activities
elopment Construction
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2679
��
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF T��� CITY OF DOWNEY
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DENSI TY BONUS APPLICATION NO.
09-72 FOR THE VIEW APARTMENTS, LOCATED AT 831442 STREET, ZONED
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, Alfredo Izmajtovich of National Community Renaisance of California (National
C[>RE), the Applicant, filed Density Bonus Application No. 09-72 to consider request for a density
bonus and two regulatory concessions for the View Apartments (the P d at 8314 '
Street, Assessor Parcel Numbers 6254-020-902 and 6254-902-914. he Project is a six-story, mu|U-
family development for income-restricted households and the request i for mdenaib/ bonus ofeleven
� ~
(11)to allow the development of a 50-unit p ject; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant also filed Site Plan Review App|icatilNo. 09-71 (SPR No. 09-71) in
conjunction with Density Bonus Application No. 09-72. SPR No. OS-71*:onoiateof Options ^1^ and '2^
and is a request to consider the options' designs and onsite improvemk:nts. The parking
arrangements of Options "1" and "2" is the principal difference betweer-the two; required parking for
Option "1" is entirely onsite, while the parking for Option "2" is both ons - e and an offsite location within
200 feet of the p ject site; and
WHEREAS, Density Bonus Application No. 09-72 also ind concessions:
1) develop 25% of Option 1'e parking spaces as compact stalis inmteacLof15Y6, which is the maximum
prescribed by the Downtown Specific Plan; and 2) reduce the parking rlquirement for Option "2" from
1.5 space per dwefling unitto one (1) space per unit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on ctober 20, 2010, to hear and
consider evidence for and against the requested density bonus and co cessions mndnmakefindingo
and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission � �the proposed c—laity increase request inthe
--- '--
context of General PJan goals and policies, av T' public service and utilities, neighborhood
compatibility and site develo and after d , and stu and after due consideration
•arzt. - ,41i412
of all evidence and reports offered at said hean
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines:
1. The p increase ie consistent with the Ge/
the plan's following goals and policies:
Goal 2:
Policy 2.1:
Policy
Policy 2.5:
Encourage axmr�t/of housing types an
meet the existing and future needs of city
Prov�eadeoum��abeeand zoning tmen
housing to address the regional fair shar
Enoounagein�U development
residential sites.
Ama�tprivate and nonprofit developers in nrov�affordable in� affordable housing
to low income residents and special need groups.
1
"
�enm| Plan in that it implements
adequate supply of housing to
esidents.
urage and facilitate a range of
of land to provide adequate
Resolution No.
Density Bonus Application No. 09-72
Goal 3: Expand and protect housing opportuniti for all economic segments
and special housing needs of the comm
Policy 3.1: Use public financial resources, as feasib , to support the provision of
housing for lower income households anspeciaI needa0noups.
Reduce the impact of potential g on the
nnaintenanoe.imnprovennent.and product
Goal 4:
Policy 4.3: Utilize density bonuses fee reductions,
minimize the effect of governmental con
Policy 4.4: Utilize the Red ent Agency as a fiDI to providesites and assist in
the development of affordable housing.
2. The proposed project will provide 49 in
3. The units wifl be income restricted for no Iess than 55 y
covenants recorded as Iiens on the property; plus, the p
that affordability restrictions be recorded as part of their
4. Community facihties are adequate to serve the propose
mohmo|a, and public transit are located within walking di
Utilities are available and adequate to serve the propos
WHEREAS, the proposed project is requesting two regulatory c
applicant to devetop 25% of Option 1 's parking spaces as compact sp
1 5%; and 2) reduce the parking requirement of Option "2" from 1.5 spa
per unit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Co
recommends to the City Council an eleven (11) unit density bonus over
for a total of 50 units at 96 units per acre and two (2) concessions for t
8314 2 Street, more mpecifioa||ydescribed ao Assessor Parcel Numb
�
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 201h day of October, 2010
2
U
n
•
other regulatory incentives to
aints.
artments.
rs with several affordability
ect's funding sources require
ancing.
project. Neighborhood parks,
nce of the project site.
project.
5. The application's proposed density increase and reIateconcession ion request will not
have an adverse impact on surrounding properties and le proposal is compatible with
the uses occup ing neighboring properties. -
6. The p provides a community room and onsite garden, courtyard and
other onsite amenities for future residents.
WHEREAS, State Density Bonus Law 65915 requires that whe pla housing developer meets
certain criteria for a density bonus, the Iocal jurisdiction must grant reg atory concessions (unless the
city makes a written finding that the concessions or incentives are not r ' uired in order to provide for
affordable housing costs as defined by state Iaw); and
cessions: 1) permit the
m instead of the required
s per unit to one (1) space
ission of the City of Downey
e otherwise allowed density
View Apartments, located at
6254-020-902 and 914.
Resolution No.
Density Bonus Application No. 09-72
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
3
Lo is Morales, Chairman
Cit Planning Commission
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Res lution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Downey a1a regular meeting thereof, held c-lthe 20 day of October, 2010,
by the following vote, to wit:
Th esa Du��e.Se�e��
City Planning Commission
II
i