HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes-10-20-10OV D04,
REGULAR MEETING
DOWNEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Yi s
®' WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2010
LI FO CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVENUE
DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA
6:30 P.M.
A Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held October 20, 2010. After the Pledge of
Allegiance to the flag, roll was called at 6:30 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Murray, District 1
Robert Kiefer, District 2, Vice Chairman
Fernando Vasquez, District 5
Terry Lambros, District 4
Louis Morales, District 3, Chairman
ALSO PRESENT: Brian Saeki, Community Development Director
Charles Vose, Interim City Attorney
John Perfitt, Assistant Community Development Director
William Davis, City Planner
Mark Sellheim, Principal Planner
Ed Velasco, Housing Manager
Jessica Flores, Associate Planner
Kevin Nguyen, Assistant Planner
Theresa Donahue, Secretary
III. MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez,
and passed by a vote of 5 -0, to approve the Minutes of October 6, 2010.
IV. AGENDA CHANGES: Community Development Director Saeki noted staff's recommendation for
Public Hearing Item #1 is to continue to November 3, 2010.
V. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Community Development Director Saeki did not provide a
report on City Council actions.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Chairman Morales noted there were no Consent Calendar items.
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
PLN -10 -08125 (SITE PLAN REVIEW)
Location:
8236 -8274 Firestone Boulevard
Owner /Applicant:
Amusement Industry, Inc.
Authorized Agent:
Geovanny Mendoza
Staff:
William Davis
CEQA:
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this request
has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15302 (Class 2, Replacement or Reconstruction).
Request:
A Site Plan Review request for approval of the architectural design, exterior
building materials, colors, and landscaping for a restaurant/retail development,
on property zoned C -3 /DP (Central Business District/Downtown Overlay) zone.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing for PLN -10- 08125. Ms. Donahue affirmed proof of
publication. Chairman Morales noted staff's recommendation is to continue to November 3, 2010.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 28, 2010 — PAGE 1
Page 2
Chairman Morales asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the matter this evening.
There were no persons who indicated their desire to address the Commission at this time.
It was moved by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Lambros and passed by a 5 -0
vote, to continue the public hearing for PLN -10 -08125 to November 3, 2010.
2. PLN -10 -08099 (SPECIAL EVENT)
Location: 9001 Paramount Boulevard
Owner /Applicant: Cornerstone Christian Worship Center
Authorized Agent: Andrea Valenzuela
Staff: David Blumenthal
CEQA: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this request
has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15304 (Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land).
Request: A Special Event request allowing a one (1) day outdoor event on Saturday,
October 30, 2010, on property zoned R1 -7,500 (Single Family Residential).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing for PLN -10 -08099 (Special Event). Ms. Donahue
affirmed proof of publication.
William Davis, City Planner, presented staff's report regarding the proposed one -day event which will
include live entertainment, and is proposed to run from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. He stated the noise -
generating activities will be oriented away from the neighboring residences.
Steve Jordan, pastor for the worship center, addressed the Commissioners. He stated that his
administrative assistant had filed the application, but was not present this evening. He explained that
the event is an outreach to the community and they especially hoped the families of the Head Start
program which operated at their site, would be able to enjoy the activities.
Commissioner Murray asked if Mr. Jordan had reviewed and accepted the conditions of approval.
Pastor Jordan stated his assurance that the conditions of approval would be followed.
Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
The Commissioners expressed their confidences that this event would be a nice community event, as
in past years, and wished Mr. Jordan a successful day.
It was moved by Commissioner Kiefer, seconded by Commissioner Murray and passed by a
unanimous vote, to adopt Resolution No. 10 -2674, approving PLN -10- 08099.
3. PLN -10 -08033 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
Location: 9060 Firestone Boulevard
Owner /Applicant: Michael Fallas /J & M Properties
Authorized Agent: Roger Spencer / Cortel for Clear Wireless, LLC
Staff: Jessica Flores
CEQA: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this request
has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities).
Request: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to collocate three (3) new panel
antennas, three (3) new microwave antennas, and one (1) new equipment
cabinet screened within an existing rooftop penthouse of a building, on
property zoned SP 91 -2 (Specific Plan No. 91 -2 (Lakewood /Firestone Specific
Plan).
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20, 2010 — PAGE 2
Page 3
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing for PLN -10 -8033. Ms. Donahue affirmed proof of
publication.
Jessica Flores, Associate Planner, presented staff's report and accompanying PowerPoint. She
pointed out on the exhibit where the existing roof - mounted cellular antennas are located, and stated
that the existing equipment was approved by the City's Design Review Board on July 12, 2006. Ms.
Flores said that the applicant's proposal is to modify the existing wireless facility by adding three (3)
new panel antennas, three (3) new microwave antennas, and one (1) new equipment cabinet, all to be
installed behind the existing rooftop penthouse. She stated that there would be no visible change to the
existing building.
Commissioner Vasquez inquired as to the height of the equipment.
Ms. Flores responded that the equipment will not exceed the current height.
Commissioner Kiefer asked if anything else was within the penthouse structure.
Roger Spencer, applicant, 1335 21S Street, Manhattan Beach responded, noting that other than the
existing large mechanical equipment on the roof, nothing more is up there. Mr. Spencer inquired about
condition #10, a Public Works requirement that was not pertinent.
Ms. Flores affirmed that this condition did not apply and should be removed, reducing the total number of
conditions to 18.
Mr. Spencer stated that he accepts the remaining conditions of approval.
Chairman Morales asked for any correspondence. Staff noted that no correspondence had been received
on this item.
Chairman Morales invited members of the public to address the Commission. No persons came forward
to address the Commission on this matter.
Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Lambros, seconded by Commissioner Murray and passed by a 5 -0 vote,
to adopt Resolution No. 10 -2675, deleting condition #10.
Chairman Morales asked staff if they would be preparing a report on the existing cell site approvals, as
requested at the last meeting.
Community Development Director Saeki stated the report should be ready within 30 day.
4. PLN -10 -08050 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
Location: 7924 Firestone Boulevard
Owner /Applicant: Charles DeGroot
Authorized Agent: Chip Clustka
Staff: Kevin Nguyen
CEQA: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this request
has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities).
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20, 2010 — PAGE 3
Page 4
Request: A Conditional Use Permit request by Clearwire Communications to install six (6)
wireless antennas and three (3) dish antennas at a height of 44 -feet to the
existing 60 -feet high monopole, on property zoned C -2 (General Commercial).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing for PLN -10- 08050. Ms. Donahue affirmed proof of
publication.
Kevin Nguyen, Assistant Planner, presented staff's report and accompanying PowerPoint. He stated
the request is to install six (6) antennas and add three (3) dish antennas to the existing 60 -foot high
monopole. The proposed height of the antennas is 44 -feet, while an equipment enclosure will be
constructed on the ground within the existing equipment cabinets. Mr. Nguyen stated that the height
of all antennas will not exceed the height of the existing monopole structure.
The applicant, Chip Clustka, 4932 Suite Drive, Huntington Beach, Ca. 92699, addressed the
Commission. He said that he had no further comments; that staff did a fantastic job; and he agreed to
all recommended conditions of approval.
Chairman Morales asked for any correspondence. Mr. Nguyen noted that no correspondence had been
received.
Chairman Morales invited members of the public to address the Commission. No persons came forward
to address the Commission on this matter.
There being no further comments, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Murray and passed by a
unanimous vote to adopt Resolution No. 10 -2676, approving PLN -10- 08050.
5. PLN -10 -08051 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
Location:
8630 Florence Avenue
Owner /Applicant:
Irwin and Dalia Sherry
Authorized Agent:
Roger Spencer
Staff:
Kevin Nguyen
CEQA:
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this request
has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities).
Request:
A Conditional Use Permit request by Clearwire Communications to install six (6)
wireless antennas and six (6) dish antennas on the rooftop of the existing
commercial building, on property zoned C -P (Professional Office).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing for PLN -10- 08051. Commissioner Murray stated that he
would not be able to participate on this item due to its proximity to his place of business, and he left the
dais and left the Council Chambers. Ms. Donahue affirmed proof of publication.
Kevin Nguyen, Assistant Planner, presented staffs report and accompanying PowerPoint. He provided
the existing cellular site's approval history, which was 1) Design Review Board, DRB, approved Case
No. 98 -84 on January 27, 1999 for the design, colors, and materials of the Pagenet cellular paging
antenna installation; and 2) Design Review Board approved DRB Case No. 04 -78, on January 12, 2005
for the installation of AT &T antennas on the rooftop of the subject site. He noted that the DRB's
approval in 2005 included a condition that reads, "Property owner shall be informed a future equipment
penthouse type screen shall be constructed if additional antenna equipment or new cell antenna
providers will be located on the roof. In addition, the maximum height from the top of the future
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20, 2010 — PAGE 4
Page 5
equipment penthouse type screen shall not exceed 3 -story or 38 -feet from ground level." He noted that
this condition is included in the Resolution (Condition No. 2). He also noted that Condition #3 is to be
removed from the Resolution. Mr. Nguyen stated the exhibits show the antennas without the additional
penthouse screening and that although staff has been working with the applicant to resolve this issue,
but the issue remains.
The Commissioners addressed and discussed the following: 1) The location of the residences that might
view the roof equipment; 2) What height limit staff would recommend? 3) What color /s were being
proposed?
Mr. Nguyen noted that residential properties are to the south and east of the subject site, with
commercial to the north and west. He noted that there are residences on Bellman that currently are
able to view the existing telecommunications - related boxes. Mr. Nguyen noted that Condition 4 requires
the equipment be painted to match the building. He stated that staff support's the applicant's request to
collocate on the building. He informed the Commission that if they are comfortable with the plan as
presented (without the penthouse screening), staff will support this decision, as well.
Roger Spencer, on behalf of Clearwire, 1335 21S Street, Manhattan Beach, Ca. addressed the
Commission. Mr. Spencer appealed to the Commission on the penthouse screening requirement,
objecting in particular because the cost to install the 50' x 50' enclosure, at 6 -8' high is enormous. He
said the penthouse screen would create added bulk to the building, looking like an addition floor, which
he did not consider to be attractive, nor worth the investment. In addition, he noted that one of their
proposed box installations was an addition to an existing box. He explained that for every three feet
back they place the equipment, they must raise the equipment another foot higher.
Commissioner Lambros asked how large the boxes are, and confirmed their exact placement. She
noted that she passes by this building regularly and had barely noticed the roof equipment.
Mr. Spencer stated that the antennas are approximately 5' x 10', and must maintain a ten foot
separation.
Commissioner Vasquez asked Mr. Spencer the purpose of the antennas; and the amount of noise that
would be generated, and how close to the residential?
Mr. Spencer stated the equipment is for an entirely new network, Clearwire, which will provide all
internet services. The antennas provided no sound, they are passive units; but the equipment contains
a small a /c, which provides a slight motor sound, comparable to a refrigerator. He noted that because
they are located near to a block wall, that sound will be muted.
Commissioner Kiefer asked if the owner of the property was supportive of either option.
Mr. Spencer stated that the owner had not, as of yet, been informed of the condition requiring the
penthouse screening.
Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
The Commissioners weighed the advantages of providing the screen with the disadvantages as
discussed by the applicant. Commissioner Kiefer noted that the equipment would be painted to match
the building, which would lessen its impact. Commissioner Lambros thought it would not be necessary
to create the additional bulk to the building, and she did not think the neighbors would be negatively
impacted. Commissioner Vasquez agreed, noting that he also had not noticed the existing boxes. His
only concern is that the neighbors not be affected by the additional noise and he state that he is satisfied
that there will be no impact.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20, 2010 — PAGE 5
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 APPLICATION No. 09 -72
Location: 83142 nd Street
Owner /Applicant: Community Development Commission
Authorized Agent: National Community Renaissance (National CORE)
Staff: Mark Sellheim
CEQA: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this request
has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption).
Requests: Site Plan Review — a request to develop a six -story, 50 -unit multi - family
apartment project, consisting of Option 1 and Option 2; and
Density Bonus application - a request to grant the project a density bonus of
eleven (11) units, on property zoned Downtown Specific Plan.
Commissioner Vasquez stated that, although he has no economic interest in this item and is no longer
employed by the applicant, he would recuse himself from this item. Commissioner Vasquez stepped away
from the dais and left the Chambers.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing for Site Plan Review No. 09 -71 and Density Bonus Application
No. 09 -72. Ms. Donahue affirmed proof of publication.
Mark Sellheim, Principal Planner, presented staffs report and accompanying PowerPoint. In his overview
Mr. Sellheim depicted the two Options, noting the main difference between them is their parking
arrangements. Option 1 provides parking entirely on -site and occupies the building's ground and
subterranean levels; Option 2 would provide parking on the ground level, while the rest of its parking spaces
would be provided across the street, at a to -be -built 2 -story parking structure, of which Y2 would be retained
for public parking. He noted that the second option was submitted in case the applicant is unable to bridge
the financing gap that has emerged for Option 1".
Mr. Sellheim described the proposed apartment building, which included a presentation of the elevations
and a description of its architectural features: the facade features include alternating aluminum storefront
and stucco walls, plant covered walls, raised planters, vertical and horizontal eyebrows and metal awnings,
noting that a few of the design features will occupy different planes other than the main building wall, such
as the eyebrows and the raised planters. Also adding to the elevations is the proposed color scheme: the
stucco walls will feature a light sand finish and be painted wither white or a contrasting light blue. The
horizontal and vertical eyebrows will also be painted white, while the planters will be light blue in color. Mr.
Sellheim described the architectural style as contemporary and employs a number of design elements such
as 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.
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 parking at the parking area across 2nd
Street, that currently accommodates public parking and parking for the First Baptist Church of Downey. He
explained that both plans will provide 100 parking spaces. He also reviewed how the two Options differed in
terms of the floor lay -outs. In terms of dwelling unit size, both Options "1" and "2" will offer 35, two - bedroom
units ranging from 795 square feet to 863 square feet and 15, three - bedroom units measuring 1,002 square
feet and centrally located laundry room for each floor. He noted that this development standard meets the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20, 2010 — PAGE 6
Page 7
requirements of the Density Bonus Ordinances, which requires that affordable housing projects provide
sufficient on -site self -serve laundry facilities to meet the tenants' needs.
Mr. Sellheim explained that the Specific Plan allows up to for 75 du /ac, the Density Bonus application, if
approved, would allow to 96 units per acre. He stated that if the Commission agrees with staff's
recommendation, the Commission would approve the Site Plan Review application, 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 received.
Mr. Sellheim distributed copies of a letter form Mr. and Mrs. Emory Sipos, property owner of a business
along Downey Avenue, who indicated concerns of how the displaced public parking spaces would affect
their business. Mr. Sellheim responded to the Emorys' concerns noting that the displaced parking spaces
would be replaced. (He pointed out that the 44 spaces to be provided across the street will be public
parking spaces.) He noted that there are 16 public parking spaces behind the business. Mr. Sellheim also
noted that the entrance to the apartment building will be from 2n Street, not from the south as had been
depicted in an earlier iteration.
In addition, Assistant Community Development Director, John Perfitt provided slide elevations of the
proposed two -story parking structure and affirmed that the structure would only be necessary if one of the
funding sources cannot be secured. He stated that this option is advantageous to the businesses along
Downey Avenue and noted the structure is planned to be located directly behind the businesses at Downey
Avenue /Second Street, and 60 feet away from the properties south of 2n Street. Mr. Perfitt explained that
city staff has been negotiating with surrounding businesses and the church for upwards of two years to
provide a good parking plan. He stated that the City has negotiated extensively with the church and,
irrespective of the project, he has the green light to go forward with the two -story parking structure.
Commissioner Kiefer asked how the structure would be utilized and dedicated to the apartment tenants.
Mr. Perfitt explained that the company developing the project, National Core, would manage the project; that
the structure would be available to the public on the ground floor and kept secure for tenants' use on the
second floor by use of a control gate and swipe card.
Commissioner Kiefer commented that it did not seem very convenient.
Community Development Director Saeki noted that a representative from National CORE was present and
would be able to respond to the adequacy of the parking plan as proposed, since he has the experience of
operating such facilities.
Mr. Perfitt explained further that this project is a downtown housing project; that the City processed a
downtown Specific Plan in order to facilitate in -fill projects such as this. Responding to other comments and
questions of the Commission, Mr. Perfitt stated that one of the strategies the City is pursuing to revitalize
downtown is to build a critical mass of residential units downtown, and noted this project was setting the bar
high.
Alfredo Izmajtovich of National Community Renaissance (National CORE) stated that they are one of the
largest non - profit housing development companies in Southern California. They are a full service company,
meaning they build, own and operate their projects and employ 350 people. They have built and operate
10,000 units, of which 6500 are in Southern California. He described their commitment to high quality and
pointed to their successful track record. He said that approximately 90% of their housing stock is affordable
with some mixed - income communities. He explained that although they have mostly family units, their
portfolio also includes 2500 senior units. He stated they also now operate "Clark Manor' in Downey.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20, 2010 — PAGE 7
Page 8
Mr. Izmajtovich responded to a question from Commissioner Kiefer, noting that of their housing stock, some
is in downtown areas, but also in suburban communities. Responding to a question from Commissioner
Murray, he stated that he understands the parking concerns expressed by the Commission, but studies
show the actual demand is 1.04 per unit.
Chairman Morales noted that it can be difficult to determine actual parking need until the units are rented..
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 maintain 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 projects by performing car counts during the
week and on the week -ends.
Community Development Director Saeki reminded the Commission that the Specific Plan also provides that
once public parking reaches 60% utilization, the City will conduct a parking study to determine if alternatives
need to be provided. He noted that downtown public parking is currently at about 44 -45% utilization.
The Commissioners asked /addressed the following: 1) Number of people per unit; 2) How applicants are
screened; 3) How the tandem parking spaces are allocated.
Mr. Izmajtovich noted that they anticipate between 2,000 — 3,000 application and will screen each
application very closely; they follow strict rules as part of the low -to- moderate income state requirements;
the maximum number of people they allow in a 2- bedroom is five, while a three - bedroom could permit up to
7 people; most units are for family- oriented applicants. He stated the median income for a family of four is
$82,000; while the accepted income level for the low to moderate for the majority is about 50% of that, or
about $40,000 /per year. Mr. Izmajtovich stated that tandem spaces are allocated within units, in order to
coordinate movement.
Chairman Morales invited members of the public to address the Commission. No one came forward.
Planning Commission comments:
Commissioner Murray stated that he is very much in favor of developing the downtown, and supports
residential in the downtown, but has concerns about this project's parking impacts.
Commissioner Lambros stated that she is comfortable with the direction and information provided by the
experts. She pointed out that the city's outreach to the community was extensive and noted that because
no one from the business community has spoken against the project, she assumes this is a sign of support
from the downtown businesses.
Commissioner Murray asked for clarification about the approval process.
Mark Sellheim, Principal Planner, informed the Commission that the Site Plan Review, if approved tonight
will not become effective unless the Density Bonus application is approved by Council. Mr. Saeki explained
there were additional approvals that the City Council will have to consider besides Density Bonus, including
a Disposition and Development Agreement, before the project is approved.
Commissioner Kiefer stated that he did not doubt that the affordable housing project would be run with the
highest standard of care, but expressed concern for the increase in density. He stated that while the
positive points to support residential in the downtown area, such as a walkable community and reduced
greenhouse gases, the parking concessions on top of allowing higher density will only negatively impact the
already impacted downtown parking. He stated he supported the project, but did not support the parking
concessions of Option 2. Commissioner Kiefer suggested a continuance, during which time parking be re-
examined and other options considered. He stated the importance to provide adequate parking.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20, 2010 — PAGE 8
Page 9
Chairman Morales stated they still hadn't addressed the assignment of compact parking spaces, whether
they'd be for residents or guests, since it would be difficult to determine until the project is built. He added
that parking availability oftentimes drives a project.
Commissioner Murray stated downtown parking is definitely a challenge, especially during swap meets and
when other activities are going on downtown.
Mr. Perfitt made a couple of points: #1, the tenants will be assigned parking and will be subject to ticketing if
they park on the street, so the streets will not be impacted; #2, there will be an on -site manager who will
manage and continue to perfect the parking situation. He stated that although 50 of the parking spaces
could be provided across the street, it is important to note that the parking requirement for this project is
higher than a conventional residential project built downtown. So, they are providing more than the Specific
Plan requires, no matter which scenario goes forward.
Mr. Izmajtovich asked Commissioner Kiefer if his preference would be less compact spaces, or fewer
spaces, but standard -size stalls? He explained that their apartment projects have under - utilized spaces.
Commissioner Kiefer responded that his concern is that compact spaces would not be adequate for the
tenants' needs.
Discussion ensued regarding the benefits of the project, whether project parking would be adequate;
whether the Commission should tour one or more of the applicant's facilities to view the parking impacts;
and how management addresses property owners who bring in a 3 d vehicle.
Mr. Izmajtovich explained that tenant lease agreements are typically for three or four years. When
applicants are in a better position, perhaps when they buy a second or third vehicle, management
recognizes they should consider finding a more suited place for them. He 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 arrangement of terms such as 4 -5 years,
compared to home owners who are invested in their homes. He noted that it is easier for applicants to
move forward in this scenario when their financial situation improves. He added that he likes the project,
noting that its architectural features will be a boost to downtown. He stated that the City is working on
revitalizing its downtown and this project fits into what was visualized. Chairman Morales suggested that
the parking situation and impacts be re- examined when more developments are underway and the parking
utilization for public parking reaches 60 %. He noted that during their workshops, the Commission had
agreed that they welcomed the day parking was impacted by people in the downtown.
The Commissioners addressed National CORE projects in Whittier (51 units with 103 parking spaces);
Hawthorne (100 units with 184 parking spaces) and Yorba Linda ( 67 units with 113 parking spaces.)
Assistant Community Development Director Perfitt stated there are some time constraints imposed on this
project in order to meet deadlines for financing; however, he agreed that a two week continuance could be
supported.
Commissioner Lambros stated that a continuance in order to tour other facilities would not necessarily
provide the answer the Commissioners are seeking: the impact of parking on neighboring businesses, since
they would not hear the comments of those affected.
Commissioner Kiefer said he no longer felt a continuance is necessary.
Mr. Perfitt explained to the Commission how staff had raised the same questions and concerns during the
earlier iterations of this project and toured National CORE projects with two Council members. He said staff
would provide the addresses of those projects as has been requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20, 2010 — PAGE 9
Page 10
Commissioner Murray asked if assurances could be put in place to periodically review the parking situation.
Mr. Perfitt responded, negotiations are well- advanced in securing a parking structure across the street,
regardless of the direction of this project. He assured that Option 2 could not move forward without this
parking arrangement with the church, which would add 44 covenanted public parking spaces.
Commissioner Kiefer asked if National CORE had developed projects where parking is provided across the
street.
Mr. Izmajtovich responded that he wasn't aware of one where parking was off -site; however, he knew of
projects where the parking is in the rear, and that distance is as much as 500 feet from the units.
Mr. Perfitt noted that staff had toured Parkview Terrace, a senior project in Bell Gardens, where on -site
parking is further away than what would be provided for this project. Another popular project is Park La
Brea in Los Angeles where multi - family developments are clustered around parking decks. He noted this
comparison is apples to oranges, but the point is that parking must be creative for in -fill developments.
Mr. Izmajtovich added that the key to success is the management. That the Parkview Terrace project in Bell
Gardens only required .7 spaces per unit, but that is more than adequate for seniors' parking needs. He
stated this project is also more than adequately parked.
Commissioner Murray said it is a beautiful project and he would like to have it move forward. He also noted
that no one from the business community had addressed the Commission with any concerns. He noted
there would be ample public parking provided in lieu of the spaces lost. He stated that he is ready to move
forward. He added that the project, if approved by the Commission, will be forwarded to Council and their
review will include the Development Agreement, as well as the Density Bonus Application.
Commissioner Lambros said she is ready to move forward tonight.
Chairman Morales agreed. He pointed out that the City has been working on numerous approaches to
revitalize the downtown and the steps taken are not new to downtown development. He agreed these steps
are new to Downey, and this being one of the first residential projects in downtown is one from which the
Commission and the City will learn. He didn't think a two -week continuance would be beneficial.
Commissioner Kiefer said he'd like to be provided with the list of projects discussed. He said sometimes,
after such developments are developed, a parking nightmare begins. He said he is favor of the increased
density, but the only problem he foresees is in regards to parking. He'd like to move cautiously with this
project and avoid the potential of such negative impacts. Commissioner Kiefer agreed that the architectural
design was very beautiful.
Commissioner Lambros asked to affirm that without the approval by Council of the Density Bonus
Application, the project would not move forward.
Mr. Perfitt stated that was correct. If the Commission approves the Site Plan Review and forwards the
project to the City Council, but Council denies the Density Bonus Application, the project would unwind.
Chairman Morales stated that in this situation, with the economy what it is today, and with this being the first
high density request for the downtown and no others on the horizon it actually makes this project more
acceptable.
It was moved by Commissioner Lambros, seconded by Commissioner Murray and passed by a 4 -0 -1 vote,
with Commissioner Vasquez not present (abstaining), to adopt Resolution No. 10 -2678, approving Site Plan
Review No. 09 -71.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20, 2010 — PAGE 10
Page 11
It was moved by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Chairman Morales and passed by a 4 -0 -1 to adopt
Resolution No. 10 -2679, recommending approval of Density Bonus No. 09 -72 to the City Council.
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There was no Oral Communication from the public.
Staff:
Community Development Director Saeki reminded the Commission that the "Dine in Downey" event
planned for November 18, will run from 5:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. and will be set up on Third Street, outside City
Hall. Patrons, upon purchase of an entry fee, will be able to be free to pick and choose between the vendors.
He shared that the Taste of Downey event will include a stage where upon a band will be performing.
Responding to a question from Chairman Morales, Mr. Saeki stated that the anticipated grand opening for
Porto's is being considered for late November. He also noted that the bakery is near completion, while the
parking structure was not quite ready.
Commission
Commissioner Murray stated that the Chamber of Commerce was hosting a Candidates Forum on Thursday
evening at Downey High School. Commissioner Murray also noted that he would not be present for the
November 3 d Planning Commission meeting.
IX. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Saeki affirmed there were several items scheduled for the next Planning
Commission meeting of November 3, 2010.
X. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA: No further items were addressed.
XI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the
Commission adjourned at 8:30 p.m., to November 3, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at Downey City Hall, 11111
Brookshire Avenue, Downey, Ca.,
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 2010.
Louis Morales
Louis Morales, Chairman
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Minutes were duly approved at a Regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 3rd day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lambros, Kiefer, Morales
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Murray, Vasquez
Theresa Donahue
Theresa Donahue, Secretary
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
H: \PLANNING \PC Minutes - 2010 \Oct 20, 2010 - Minutes.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 20, 2010 — PAGE 11