Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. PC Draft Minutes - 02-18-15 DRAFT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DOWNEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVENUE DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 6:30 P.M. Chairman Lujan called the February 18, 2015, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:37 p.m., at Downey City Hall, 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, CA. After the Flag Salute, Secretary Cavanagh called roll. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Patrick Owens, District 2 Louis Morales, District 3 Jim Rodríguez, District 5 Matias Flores, District 4, Vice Chairman Hector Lujan, District 1, Chairman COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Aldo E. Schindler, Director of Community Development Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney William E. Davis, City Planner Edwin Norris, Deputy Director of Public Works David Blumenthal, Senior Planner Kevin Nguyen, Assistant Planner Mary Cavanagh, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS; REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS; AND CONFERENCE/MEETING REPORTS: None. PRESENTATIONS: None. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Director Schindler reported that the City Council approved the following items: 1) The Planning Commission’s decision to deny a request for a variance for an illegal addition constructed at 13506 Gunderson Avenue; 2) The annual agreement with the Chamber of Commerce; and 3) The second reading of the Call for Review Ordinance that was first initiated by our Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PLN-14-00231: (Conditional Use Permit) continued from January 21, 2015: Chairman Lujan opened the public hearing for PLN-14-00231, and Ms. Cavanagh affirmed proof of publication. Assistant Planner Kevin Nguyen gave a brief PowerPoint presentation of the request by Verizon Wireless, to allow the installation of a wireless communication facility that includes twelve (12) panel antennas, a 4-foot diameter microwave antenna, and two (2) equipment cabinets on the roof top of a Verizon-owned switching building, located at 8336 Second St. During the January 21, Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 2 - 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant and the building owners (Verizon CA) to create a design that would be more aesthetically suited for the surrounding area. Mr. Nguyen reviewed the options submitted by Verizon Wireless, which addressed the main concerns of the Commissioners regarding to the screening of the buildings existing equipment. The applicant proposed the following options: Option No. 1 - Recommended by staff: Provide 9-foot high screen walls for the north and south elevations and provide a stepped down design element from the building corners that eventually traverses the length of the parapet for the screen walls located on the east and west sides of the building. This option eliminates the castle-like structures as originally proposed and helps conceal the existing mechanical equipment on the roof of the building. Option No. 2 - Recommended by the applicant: Apply a stepped-down design element for the screen walls along all four sides of the building for uniformity. Mr. Nguyen stated that both options would address the Commissioners' concerns; however, staff is recommending Option No. 1, which proposes to reshape the screening boxes and raise the parapet walls to resolve the problems of providing adequate screening for both the proposed wireless communication facility, as well as the existing mechanical equipment on the roof of the building as outlined during the January 21, 2015 meeting. As such, staff is recommending approval of the request in selecting Option No. 1, subject to the conditions of approval. Applicant Marilyn Warren, representing Verizon Wireless, stated that she had no comments and will accept either option; however, Verizon’s choice is Option No. 2. The Commissioners discussed the options presented. It was moved by Commissioner Morales and seconded by Commissioner Rodriguez and passed by a 5-0 vote, to approve Resolution 15-2906 (PLN-14-00231). It was then moved by Commissioner Rodriguez and seconded by Commissioner Owens, and passed by a vote of 5-0 to direct staff to work with the applicant to implement Option No. 1 of the designs presented. 2. PLN-14-00179: (Negative Declaration and Tentative Parcel Map No. 73035): Chairman Lujan opened the public hearing for PLN-14-00179, and Ms. Cavanagh affirmed proof of publication. City Planner William Davis gave a PowerPoint presentation of the request to subdivide a +/- 47,718 sq. ft. parcel of land into four lots and a private street, on property located at 8572 Cherokee Drive. It is surrounded by single family residential developments in the R-1 8,500 (Single-Family Residential) zone. Mr. Davis stated that the proposed private street consists of a 29-foot wide private driveway easement and a 3-foot wide planter. The private driveway will provide ingress and egress to Cherokee Drive and also serve as a utility easement. The private driveway easement is wide enough to comply with a Fire Code requirement for emergency vehicle access to the site while allowing vehicle parking along one side of it. Commissioner Rodriguez discussed the public easements, lot sizes and average (116 ft.) lot depths of the surrounding properties with staff. Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 3 - Mr. Davis stated that in terms of the subdivision requirements, staff feels that the project satisfies the City’s development standards for creating new lots in the R-1 8,500 zone. However, an important aspect of the property that must be considered by the Planning Commission is the historic significance of the site. The home was originally owned by AI Ball, whose agricultural contributions put Downey on the map, and the architect who designed the home was renowned for his architectural designs in developing Spanish style colonial homes during that era. In 1977, the house was registered as eligible for historic preservation and was entered into the State of California's Historic Resources Inventory. In 2006, the property was owned by the Cerros family, who received approval of plans from the Design Review Board to enlarge the 7,483 square foot house while also maintaining its distinct architectural features. During the construction phase, it was discovered that the home was originally constructed with masonry tiles and the structural integrity was not there, making it susceptible to earthquakes. The applicants returned to the Design Review Board with plans to demolish the house and reconstruct it to replicate the original structure. Staff also prepared an initial study to consider the historic aspects of the property, it was determined that the house could be demolished however; t he reconstructed design of the home was to make structural enhancements with the archways remaining, and maintain the architectural look of the home with minor changes to have somewhat of a contemporary look. The Design Review Board approved the request and the house was demolished on December 3, 2007 and due to the economic downturn in 2008, no additional work occurred and the property has remained in near ruin for approximately seven years. Mr. Davis reviewed aerial photos of the remains of the residence as it stands today, which included the arcade porch with its seven arches and 12 columns, remnants of the tennis/basketball court, pool and portions of the concrete foundation and basement walls. Mr. Davis continued by saying that the property is now owned by Joe and Gloria Campuzano. This is a new project submitted by the new owners, and the historic aspects of the house need to be considered again. In accordance with (CEQA) guidelines, another study was done for the new project. The City hired a historical consultant, Samantha Murray (Dudek), to perform a historic research evaluation (HRE) of the property. Ms. Murray performed the study in compliance with the State guidelines. The staff report concludes that the property does not maintain the requisite integrity needed to maintain its historic significance. The damage done to the property was found to be significant; it is also inherent in the fact that when the Ball family owned the property, much of that part of Downey was covered by orange groves, whereas today it’s surrounded by single family residences. The HRE report concluded that the material impairment caused by the construction has taken away from the historic significance of the property. The recommendation is that the property is not eligible for historic preservation due to the state and national guidelines for historic preservation. As such, it would be appropriate to allow the new project to proceed. The new applicants/owners have submitted plans for a new project that complies with the City’s development standards for division of property within the R-1 8,500 zone. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 73035, as well as adopting the Negative Declaration and the associated Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE). Commissioner Morales asked if someone else were to purchase the property and want to build it to its original standard, would it no longer be recognized by the State as historical, to which Mr. Davis confirmed by saying yes and advised the Commissioners to address the question to Ms. Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 4 - Murray. Vice Chairman Flores asked what the determination was that was made by the State in 1977 regarding it being historical, to which Mr. Davis clarified that the property was only listed as eligible of historic significance by the State and is no longer the case today. Commissioner Rodriguez commented that since it was considered eligible in 2008 by the DRB with a condition that the home be rebuilt to be a replica, if the applicant decided to rebuild it back to its original condition, and go back to the historical society, would it not be eligible? Mr. Davis responded by saying that the question should be directed to the consultant, Samantha Murray who would be more qualified to answer. Commissioner Owens asked Mr. Davis to clarify what the applicant had requested in 2008; was the request to rebuild or to demolish? Mr. Davis responded by saying that in 2008, they asked to rebuild it to its previous appearance. In 2006-2007, they had the permits to do the room addition and partially demolish a portion of the house; that is when they discovered the extremely poor structural integrity of the house. The owner then sought the DRB’s permission to modify their plan to demolish the structure in order to build something that met current structural safety and earthquake standards, as well as to maintain the historic quality of the house. Samantha Murray, Architectural Historian with Dudek in Pasadena, CA, stated that she was brought on to re-evaluate the current condition of the home in terms of its historical significance, which generally, CEQA recommends that you update them every five years or so for changes in historic context on the properties, such as this case. Ms. Murray stated that she did a thorough historic context on the property and spoke to some members of the Downey Historical Society. Ms. Murray stated that there is definite historic significance; however, the California Register of Historic Resources requires that not only does a property demonstrate its historical significance, but it must also demonstrate its substantial integrity. For this particular property, based on the large amount of demolition and destruction of most of the home and the setting of the property, it can no longer convey those historical associations, because it suffered so much impairment of the material. Ms. Murray concluded by saying that it is her recommendation that the site found the house to be ineligible for the California National Register; the original evaluation was done in 1977 when the home was fully intact and was therefore considered eligible. Commissioner Rodriguez asked how the property would not be considered historically significant if the project had been approved under the assumption that if it was rebuilt, and if it was rebuilt now as a replica, how can it not qualify as historical? Ms. Murray stated that she was not involved in the 2008 project and explained that the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for the treatment of historical properties frowns upon replicas that are reconstructed without the original materials, you are not supposed to call it a replica. In terms of eligibility, usually properties that are reconstructed are generally considered to be eligible if you can show that from the beginning you can comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for the treatment of historical properties; then, it could be considered historically significant by a local listing but not by state or federal. Vice Chairman Flores asked about the CEQA requirements to re-evaluate every five years and yet we are at seven years, to which Ms. Murray clarified that it is only required if another project Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 5 - comes up and it has been five years since the last evaluation. In this case it would just be an update of the original evaluation based on what stands today because that is all that is relevant. Commissioner Rodriguez commented that the intention of the DRB and historical process is then destroyed. We are looking at a different project now, but along that train of thought, it is questionable. Commissioner Morales responded by saying that we are missing a key component. Typically when a structure has historical significance and it’s going to be remodeled or refurbished, usually the owner or contractor works closely with an inspector who is certified to review and make sure that the improvements are within the guidelines to maintain the historical significance of that structure. In this case, because the structure was completely demolished, whatever could have been saved is now gone. In a sense, what the Design Review Board did back in 2007 was erase the significance of the structure by saying go ahead and demolish it without putting guidelines in place or a bond in case the economy changes, that there is a guarantee that this would be rebuilt the way that the DRB indicated. Those were missing, and there is nothing that we can do about those things now. Restrictive guidelines should be in place that would maintain the historical significance of the house. To rebuild it as a replica would maintain sentimental value, but in terms of the State, it’s no longer considered historical. Commissioner Rodriguez disagreed and said that it says that the State of California deemed the house eligible for historical preservation due to the cultural significance of the original owner. Ms. Murray clarified that it was never determined that it was historical, it was found as a 3S, which is an individual property that appears eligible for listing in the National Register. Commissioner Morales stated that at that point measurements should have been taken to ensure that it maintained at least that level. Letting it be demolished took away whatever momentum it had to become a recognized historical structure. Director of Community Development Aldo E. Schindler stated that the effort was to mitigate what was lost, not to replace, not to recreate an eligibility or designation; it was just to mitigate. It’s a Band-Aid on what was happening there; so to imply that you’re going to rebuild something with historical significance is not accurate. Commissioner Rodriguez responded by saying that this would mean that the entire process was just a waste of time. If by rebuilding and keeping the arches in the front, you meet the California requirements, so then why would any of it have been done? Ms. Murray responded by saying that there is so much material impairment, that in looking at just this project, it does not retain requisite integrity, to which Commissioner Rodriguez called it a false premise and restated the intentions of the original application and what was agreed to, adding that he understood her analysis, commenting that it was a clear analysis. Commissioner Morales asked Ms. Murray, if a historical property has a building on its site, the significance is not limited to the building itself, but is also tied to the person who made it significant. In this case, it’s not the material used to construct the building that is significant. What is significant in this case, is who the person was that built the home, and what role he played in the region in developing the industry. So by virtue of rebuilding the house and the fact that it’s rebuilding what Mr. Ball put in place, his role in the community was far more significant than the Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 6 - actual structure itself. So, to what extent would that play a role in the State of whatever guide, in recognizing that it was historical? Ms. Murray asked Commissioner Morales if he is saying that if anyone rebuilds the property, that it would have historical associations with Mr. Ball. Commissioner Morales stated that it is Mr. Ball who has historical significance here in the role that he played, so the historical nature of items is not necessarily limited to the structure itself, to which Ms. Murray stated that the California Register criteria require that it must do two things, it must meet one of the four designation criteria, which if it did retain integrity, she would find it eligible under two of those criteria. However, it must also retain significant integrity, and that is where this fell through; you cannot have only floating associations. The structure/building has to be able to convey those associations and in the state that it is in now, and stated that it is her opinion that it cannot convey those associations with one remaining character defining feature. There have been a lot of other things that changed over the years, such as the 68 acres of land with a sprawling fruit orchard that is no longer the case. A lot of things have changed in the setting, but if the actual residence was the way it was shown in photos from 2006, she would have concurred with that eligibility finding. Commissioner Rodriguez disclosed that he visited the site and spoke to people standing around. He also met with Tom Burney and his wife at their home located at 10514 Birchdale Avenue at 3:00 p.m. today. Mr. Burney had submitted a letter in opposition regarding concerns that they have with the back wall that would impair their sunlight and privacy issues, both of which are stated in our General Plan Policy 1.4.24 that encourages developments to consider impacts to privacy, view, sunlight of adjacent properties. He also stated that he also met with the applicant Rosaria, her husband and their contractor Jose, just before the meeting, to get their feel for what their intentions were for the development. They shared a few things regarding the private driveway and their expectations in their development process. The Commissioners discussed the private streets in the area, front yard setbacks, sidewalks and parkways with staff. City Attorney Yvette Abich Garcia gave direction to the Commission to discuss only the issues that pertain to the application presented. Commissioner Rodriguez commented on the effects that the project would have on the harmony and character of the area. The Commissioners discussed the subdivision, buildable areas, sidewalks, yards, driveways, easements and property lines with staff as they pertain to the City Municipal Code. Commissioner Rodriguez expressed his concerns with the lighting on Cherokee, the lot sizes and depths, and sidewalks on a private street. Commissioner Rodriguez asked if removing the sidewalks would be allowed, to which City Attorney Garcia read the condition (4): The City Planner is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved preliminary plans or any of the conditions if such modifications shall achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions. Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 7 - Commissioner Rodriguez asked if removing the sidewalks would be a modification that would be acceptable or a substantial change, to which Director Schindler explained that our goal is always to increase the quality of life, so if it is the perception that the sidewalk increases that quality of life, we would keep it. Applicant Jose Murguia, Murguia Construction, 601 S. Third Avenue, Avocado Heights, CA, addressed Commissioner Rodriguez’s questions regarding the setbacks, driveway and sidewalks, by clarifying that there is only one house (the second house) with a 20’ setback from the curb, and the others are further back; therefore, he doesn’t see that there will be an issue for cars parking in the driveway. He stated that he has met with each of the City’s departments and the plans meet all City standards, including the Building Code. He said that he believes that they have designed a beautiful project that will beautify the neighborhood by improving a dilapidated property that has been there for seven years. Mr. Murguia stated his company has been working in Downey for 25 years and has the confidence in their design of the property. Speaking in opposition of the project: Katie Rispoli, 8434 Fifth St., Downey, stated that she is a new resident of Downey (six months), and works professionally as a historic preservation consultant. She has concerns with this project. Ms. Rispoli stated that although she agreed in some aspects with Ms. Murray, if she were to look at this project impartially as it as it exists now, she would reach the same conclusion that there is not enough left on the site for it to qualify as what it had formerly been noted as eligible to be on the National Register of Historic Places. However, if looking at the comprehensive project and the fact that the former property owner was asked to recreate or reconstruct the house that was once attached to that porch, while taking into consideration that the potential recreation or reconstruction exists maintaining a lot of its character defining features such as; the size that is held in over the last 50 years since it was last subdivided, the tennis courts in the rear, the remains of half of the cylindrical driveway, and the gas pump and the rear structures, these items together with a recreated version of the house would not mean that this house would not be eligible to be on a landmarked registry of a historic place. Ms. Rispoli went on to say that as Ms. Murray said, it may not be eligible to be on the National Register; however, we cannot rule out that the house cannot be placed on the California list of historic properties, without speaking to someone with the office of the State of California Preservation Office. We needed to be able to rule that out and we cannot firmly rule that out without talking to someone in that office with the State of California to discuss the potential for this house to be historic because there have been properties that have been recreated that have been successful in being listed as historic landmarks. Because this property has such a cultural value, as opposed to an architectural value, there is still the promise for it to be listed as a historic resource. Downey has a lot of cultural history that has been getting stripped away and this would be a great opportunity for the City of Downey to reinforce its notion to promote a good quality of life, and providing opportunities for future state parks and historic landmarks in the City of Downey since Downey doesn’t have the ability to list local landmarks, this is a great potential resource for the residents here to have this house for future generations even if it is a reconstructed version. Ms. Rispoli said that we still have the porch and the property as it is currently subdivided. It’s an important piece of land and it is one of the largest parcels left for a single family residence in the City, and said that she doesn’t think that the abundance of space should be overlooked and further subdivided to create more single family homes. Ms. Rispoli stated that it is her professional opinion that we should refer the CEQA evaluation to a nearby CEQA attorney that is located in the Southern California region that is familiar with historic resources and can look at this comprehensively from the 2008 instance, Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 8 - and 2007, and the property as it exists now and have the property re-evaluated before the Planning Commission makes the final judgment on moving forward with this case. It's very important to the City of Downey culturally and it has a lot of promise as a resource here. Ms. Rispoli said that her professional opinion would be to postpone making the decision until it can be looked at by a CEQA attorney and by someone with the ability to look at this in a comprehensive light and not just as it stands now as a property because she does think there is potential loss of a historic resource. Vice Chairman Flores asked what an analysis by the State, of historic preservation would look like, and what time frames and expenses are we looking at. Ms. Rispoli responded by describing a scenario that involved determining if reconstruction is worthwhile, discussing it with the office of Historic Resources, then deciding to landmark the house. With that, listing the home as a historic resource on the California Registry is possible Vice Chairman Flores asked how long we would have to wait before someone comes along and wants to take that project, to which Ms. Rispoli responded that it would depend on whether or not it gets good publicity; you might be able to find someone interested quickly, or if you just list it and wait, it could take time. It depends on the market and other variables. Ms. Rispoli stated that the property has been there for five years with a fence around it that her opinion as a resident of Downey is that this property doesn’t seem to be causing any more blight, or substantial harm to any neighbors, or public nuisance than any of the vacant lots that are in the nearby vicinity such as those that are on Paramount Blvd. and Fifth Street that are causing more of a nuisance to the residential neighbors. Vice Chairman Flores asked Ms. Rispoli for clarification as to the study and determination that she was recommending the City do what had already been done by Ms. Murray and have somebody else do it and reach a different opinion. Ms. Rispoli stated that Ms. Murray was asked to look at the property as it currently exists, which is almost completely demolished. She said that Ms. Murray was not asked to look at it the property comprehensively as a whole with the character defining features. Right now it doesn’t have the credentials and would not be listed on the National Register; but, if she had drawings or plans of the property from 2008 to look at, and considered looking at the history of the City of Downey and the processes that we carried out before, or to see if it had been recreated what affect the defining features of how it was rebuilt, or the entire plot of land and other elements that needed to be considered from a comprehensive viewpoint. It doesn’t seem that she was asked to look at the entire parcel. The point is that it needs to be looked at again from a more comprehensive perspective. Chairman Lujan asked Ms. Rispoli to clarify. Is she asking to wait for someone to purchase and rebuild and then do the report, or look at it now as it currently exists? Ms. Rispoli explained that she believes that the City should hire a CEQA attorney to review what has happened to date from 2007-2008 to present, to see if it is a viable option. Ms. Murray was not asked to look at it comprehensively. Commissioner Rodriguez asked Ms. Rispoli to clarify if she is asking that we hire a CEQA attorney and then do another analysis, to which she explained that there are non-profits who may donate their time to do it quickly and have the attorney look at what has happened to date and see if the Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 9 - City of Downey is opening itself up to any vulnerability. If they say that it’s ok to subdivide, then you can hold this meeting again and move forward. She suggests they not vote on it to make sure there are not any violations with CEQA. If the attorney were to say that this does need to be re- evaluated by the same or a separate preservation consultant by looking at it from a more comprehensive view, then you could do that before moving forward in making a vote. The CEQA attorney could come back and say that it’s not possible to subdivide the property after the previously declared mitigated negative declaration by the Planning Commission at that time and that decision still upholds itself; someone in CEQA law needs to determine if that decision is still upheld or if it can be overturned, and what would have to happen to have it overturned. She stated that right now, from a legal standpoint, she is educated and knows that to make the decision to subdivide this property without being aware that the mitigated negative declaration which required the house to be rebuilt is still in place. Commissioner Rodriguez asked if Ms. Rispoli if she thought that Ms. Murray did not cover the negative declaration, or perhaps this is not her scope of work, to which Ms. Rispoli stated that Ms. Murray’s analysis was to look at the property as it stands now, and she too would have come to the same conclusion; therefore, a more comprehensive look is necessary. Vice Chairman Flores asked if the City Attorney’s office had done a CEQA assessment, to which City Attorney Garcia responded by saying yes and explained that this is a new project. The way the mitigated negative declaration was prepared back in 2006-07 was based on a proposal to build a single-family home, and there was much more of that structure existing at that time, than there is now. That was one project and they did a mitigated negative declaration back then, under different circumstances. Now, we have a different project for a subdivision of land for four homes, and so we treat this as a new project and conduct CEQA all over again, based on the current conditions of the property. Ms. Murray was asked to prepare her assessment. One of the big issues under CEQA is whether we need to protect the cultural or historic resource here. If we do, just like we did in 2006, then there are some obligations that we have to require that those resources be preserved in some way. The Secretary of the Interior has standards that require that those resources be protected and preserved in a certain way. City Attorney Garcia explained further that we asked Ms. Murray to look at that, and her conclusion was that there is really not much left of the home to preserve. Attorney Garcia added that perhaps the Commissioners would like Ms. Murray to go back and look at this more comprehensively, maybe look at some of the past approvals, maybe look at some of the features that were noted that still exist, or make contact with some the state agency. That is something you can ask her to do to supplement her report; however, you have to make a decision on this particular project. We can’t not make a decision and force this owner to build a single-family home; that is not the project that is being proposed here. A decision has to be made, one way or the other. If you need additional information from Ms. Murray, if you would like her to look at additional issues, or items that were not covered in her report, you’re free to do that. You can also ask her to make some contact with the state agency. Vice-Chairman Flores asked if the State Preservation Historic Agency has any regulatory powers, to which City Attorney Garcia confirmed, yes; it’s a State Agency. Commissioner Morales asked if Ms. Murray if there are any guidelines from the state agency that would help us to determine if additional studies were done, would it be then be considered historic or if we were to go through all of this effort, it still would not yield anything. Ms. Murray responded by saying that the Office of Historic Preservation that operates in an advisory capacity only; it does not enforce law. They often comment on CEQA projects, but they would be advisory only; they do Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 10 - not enforce anything for CEQA. Commissioner Rodriguez asked Ms. Murray if she called and spoke with someone from the state office about the more comprehensive view point, to which Ms. Murray responded no; her scope of work for this project was to evaluate the residence for historical significance, which is what she did. City Attorney Garcia advised the Commissioners that one issue that they have is that they can ask Ms. Murray or staff to go back and comment on the environmental review. Director Schindler stated that the conditions that were placed on that prior entitlement were specific to that entitlement only and does not run with the land, which had a shelf life of one year pursuant to our Municipal Code and that is where that activity lives and dies. Back then, the project applicant could have returned and changed the aspect of that project, and would have been in front of the Design Review Board back then. It would be very similar to any other project in our City that wanted change its scope. For example, the Promenade could change their scope from retail to residential; they would have that ability to do so also, but they would have to come before the approval body again to seek that. It needs to be clear that those conditions of that entitlement do not run with the land. Ms. Murray stated that in talking about looking at things more comprehensively the property is in the condition that it’s in and that’s what she looked at. Some of the things that are being brought up are more of a CEQA legal issue that, she would not have prepared any document that Ms. Rispoli brought up. City Attorney Garcia responded by saying that Ms. Murray could comment on some of the aspects of what was being brought up to have some historical value that were not mentioned in her report, such as the tennis court and the gas pump. She asked if that makes any difference in her determination that there is really not a historical resource here to preserve. Ms. Murray stated that she doesn’t believe it would make a difference because you’re looking at the integrity of the property as a whole; you look at what’s surviving. Her opinion is that in the state that the property is in, it no longer appears eligible because it cannot convey its historical significance. Commissioner Morales revised his question and asked that if he were to call the Historic Preservation office would they be able to give a quick answer or direction on this property? Director Schindler responded by saying that they would give a response that is favorable to save the cultural integrity of that site, no different than if you called the Employment Development Department and had questions over labor issues. As mentioned, they are in an advisory capacity only and they would likely provide you with similar direction that you heard from our resident. However, from an unbiased non-advocacy perspective, the CEQA analysis process was done at a local level and those results are what you have in front of you that the staff is presenting. At the recommendation by the City Attorney, Chairman Lujan called for public comments. Speaking in opposition: Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 11 - Dan Wilson, 8141 E. Second St., Suite 501, Downey, stated that he is appearing as a lawyer on behalf of his mother Mrs. Patricia Wilson, 8640 Quinn St. Mr. Wilson stated his client Mrs. Wilson’s property is at the corner of Bellman and Quinn and is approximately 50 yards from parcel No. 4 on the parcel map. He apologized for his appearance as he was informed of the hearing at 6:10 pm this evening and was asked by his mother to speak on her behalf as she is greatly concerned, as are her neighbors. Mr. Wilson stated that he is not only an attorney, but he knows a great deal more about the project than Ms. Murray or Mr. Davis because he grew up across the street from the project and lived there from 1962 to the time he graduated from law school. He explained how well he knew the project site as he and the neighborhood children spent their free time playing there. Mr. Wilson reviewed the history of the surrounding area that the Commissioners may not be aware of, and thinks that the CEQA report might be somewhat misleading. He recalled that approximately 32 years ago, there were some very contentious, ugly hearings before this Commission in its previous setting and before the City Council and then returned to the Commission with the audience very full of residents. It was approximately 1979, when his father, William Wilson who was one of the first attorneys to practice in Downey, was well respected and politically connected, represented the entirety of the residents of what is known as Cherokee Estates. Following the death of Dr. Richard Steer who owned the property referred to as the Ball Estate, there were proceedings before this Commission to subdivide the property on the east and west sides of the lot (Bellman and Birchdale) into 10 houses on the two parcels. It would have been approved by the Planning Commission and believes that it was a majority vote to allow the construction of ten parcels, ten residences on those two strips. In coming to that conclusion, the Planning Department looked to the residences on the north side of Cherokee, which are considerably smaller in size and frontage as compared to the rest of the properties in the Cherokee Estates. The residents were outraged by the plans to put relatively small properties, into a neighborhood where the houses were much larger in size. The decision went back and forth from the Planning Commission and City Council approximately 1979-82. A compromise was reached to build four to five houses on Birchdale and four to five houses on Bellman. The neighborhood wanted only four houses built, two on Bellman and two on Birchdale which would have reflected the frontal street sides of the property more accurately. A compromise was reached and adopted to build three houses on Birchdale and three on Bellman. The lots would be somewhat smaller, but would be in conformity of the houses that had been built after the Cherokee Estates development on Seventh St., which were smaller. In reading the staff report today, the report references a number of comparable units, in terms of their size, square footage, lot width and size. In compiling that, it appears that these compromised units around what the Steer lot would have been are the units that were used to compare. If you went 100 yards out from this development, you would see that the lots are larger in size. Effectively what’s occurred here is that some aberrational lot sizes have been used to be the standard to judge whether or not the new proposed four lots are in conformity with what was a compromised position at an earlier time, meaning, we’re getting smaller. If you drive through that neighborhood, you will see the issue of the cars parked on the street. In the 1970’s or 80’s there were less cars parked there. When he goes to the neighborhood now, Mr. Wilson fears that if his elderly mother were to become ill, it would be problematic for fire trucks and ambulances to get in there. The neighborhood is beginning to reflect some of the neighborhoods in neighboring communities such as South Gate, where he has had to drive around for 15 minutes to find a parking spot in the vicinity of where he was going to visit his client. He fears that if a plan is approved to allow even smaller lots, this will bring more people and cars, and we are going into the direction of not having enough street space to accommodate everyone going into the neighborhood. There are more cars now than there were 25 years ago when the houses were built mostly in the 1950s in the Cherokee estates where one or two cars covered everyone in the family. Now, every person has Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 12 - a car and every person parks on the street. He apologized for his appearance and not being prepared, going only by memory as he was not given time to research to give the exact dates and findings. He recalled the contentiousness and the animosity and as a long time Downey resident that knows this neighborhood; he believes that Commission or the City, or someone was victimized by a bait and switch over the development of this property. He thinks that it was fully expected by the residents of the community that this plan to maintain the historical integrity of that lot was going to be compromised by someone who had ulterior plans to now develop it rather than maintain the dignity and the historical significance the condition of that property would have extremely well known to anyone one with some degree of understanding of buildings or structures that it was compromised. Somewhere along the line, someone has allowed the building to be raised negating its historical affect as it should be. Chairman Lujan adjourned the meeting at 8:33 pm. for a break and called the meeting to order at 8:46. Speaking in opposition: George Redfox, 1021 Chaney Ave, Downey, stated the he grew up around the corner from the subject site. Mr. Redfox stated that he attended the Design Review Board meeting in 2006 as a resident. Mr. Redfox stated that he contacted the State of California and was told that if the property was listed as a potential historic landmark, and emailed the documents to the Commissioners for this meeting. He presented the same paperwork to the Design Review Board; however, during the meeting they said that they had no record of it. During tonight’s meeting, he heard the City Attorney say that a mitigated negative declaration had been done in 2006 that said that it was not eligible for historic property, but the paperwork he submitted said that it was, which he did present to the City and that should be included in the EIR for 2006. City Attorney Garcia clarified that there isn’t any dispute that the property was eligible in 2006; it was eligible, we don’t dispute that at all. She clarified that what she was referring to was at that time, they did a mitigated negative declaration which imposed mitigation measures to preserve certain elements of this home for the project for the single family home. Mr. Redfox recalled that it was said that the front porch of the property is historic so it’s still there because that was a historic piece, deemed relevant to save and to be worked into the new design of the home that was supposed to be there. In addition, there are two marker palm trees at the front of the street. They are very historic trees that go back to the beginning of that home. In fact, he believes that the majority of the trees in the front yard have some kind of relevance and should be preserved; they are historic and found in pictures of Mr. Ball in the front yard surrounded by these trees and they are part of his legacy. The columns that hold up the porch should all be reincorporated into some kind of design for the property or the City, and should be saved. That is historic. He stated that he is not for the lot split, but for restoration and rebuilding this home. Mr. Redfox suggested that the City look into a survey to find out where the historic homes and properties are so you don’t have these problems in the future. Something should be done to look at every historic home or property throughout the whole City so that you don’t have problems with tearing them down illegally as had been done with Johnny’s Broiler. There needs to be preservation, a survey, an ordinance and some kind of a paper that says that you can’t do this, until this is done first. Dan Latham 9615 Birchdale Ave, Downey, and has been a Downey resident for his entire life. He Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 13 - said that he takes a lot of pride in his community and has seen a lot of his history torn down. He too attended the 2006 Design Review Board hearing and there are elements that were saved; such as, the windows, the tiles and all that stuff is supposed to be there according to the City. In 2006, the residents were told that it had historical significance, the Design Review Board which was part of the City, stated that. Later, it gets torn down with the approval of the Design Review Board. If we tear it down, then we are tearing down the history, so in a sense it was done by the City; now, we don’t have our history, it’s gone, and now we can rebuild. Mr. Latham asked the Commission to clarify that it was said that there was a Code that stated that after one year the plans approved by the Design Review Board review board are no longer valid. He also asked is that a Code, to which Director Schindler confirmed that that is correct. Mr. Latham commented on the City’s Code and “McMansions” being built and said that the City has to be held accountable; otherwise they may tear down other historic places such as the Rives Mansion and commented that the history will be destroyed in order to build more “McMansions”. Mr. Latham thanked staff and appreciates their hard work, he too is a Commissioner, and asked that they do something to save our strong rich history that makes Downey unique. Alyson Stafford, 10445 Bellman stated that she grew up in this neighborhood and her Girl Scout troop took a nature walk on the property, and she is used to the changes with time. However, in changing this big house into four lots is not going to be in keeping with the neighborhood. Yes, the houses around there had to built for what was for sale, but if you look on Bellman or Tristan you will see there are much larger houses. The parkway on her street is 12 feet and her neighborhood is one of the last new older neighborhoods and it is not befitting of the mish mash style that could come of these houses with different sizes and heights. Ms. Stafford commented that when construction begins, she doesn’t know if these structures will be multiple stories in a neighborhood where there are very few two-story houses. She said that she was also interested in what this private street would be, because backing out into the “T” intersection of Cherokee and Bellman is an accident waiting to happen. Ms. Stafford thanked the Commission for listening to everyone’s concerns. Gloria Campuzano 8232 Suva St., stated that she is the owner of the property and has lived in Downey for 27 years. She owns Gloria’s Bar and Grill Cocina Mexicana. Mrs. Campuzano stated that she bought the property because she would drive past the property because she loved the lot and dreamed that she would one day buy it to live there with her kids. She can subdivide the lots to live there with her kids. Mr. Murguia addressed the concerns of the neighbors on Birchdale regarding the dust and the trees growing in the back of the property, and said that all of their concerns will be corrected with the new development and they are open to working with the neighbors to make things better. Chairman Lujan closed the public hearing and called for Staff’s recommendation. City Planner Davis stated that it is staff’s recommendation to approve the request for a proposed Tentative Map No. 73035. Commissioner Owens stated the he is a 60 year resident of Downey and watched a lot of the history change as relayed by the residents, in a process that he did not carefully follow. He said that he doesn’t like the position that we are all in; however, with the current state of the property and in listening to the experts, the property is just too far gone. Therefore, he is compelled to support the proposal, but understands, sympathizes and with the position he is in, in making this Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 14 - decision. Vice Chairman Flores stated that he dreads having to make these decisions. Before 2006 this was a beautiful site, and he does not believe that this is a precursor to demolish all of the historical sites in Downey. As it stands, there is nothing to save anymore and is convinced by Ms. Murray’s report and by the CEQA analysis made by our City Attorney. We have to put that property to use and it hasn’t been used for about 10 years now. Commissioner Rodriguez stated that he likes the idea of going back and having our attorney make a comprehensive analysis based on the overall content of the property; however he agrees with his fellow Commissioners that they are in a place that they don’t want to be in having to make this decision. The demolition was not done according to its requirements as per the mitigated negative declaration that gave instruction on the rebuilding the home, and that was not done. In looking at this site he admits something needs to be done. It would be nice if it was historical but it’s not, and it sat for five years. In looking at the Tentative Parcel Map before us; there are findings that we have to meet and one is that the map has to be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan does give direction in addressing the concerns expressed during the public comments such as the loss of integrity, character and history of the neighborhood, the loss of history and the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Rodriguez reviewed the lot sizes in the area and commented that this project will affect 10 parcels. He reviewed the General Plan Policies: 1.4.2.1. discouraging construction not in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood; Policy 1.4.2.4 to encourage developments that consider impacts to privacy, views, and sunlight on adjacent properties; and Policy 1.4.2.7 to maintain single family character of low density. He commented that there are no private streets in the area and concluded that the subdivision would not maintain the single family character. Commissioner Rodriguez gave suggestions regarding the trees along the rear of the property, setbacks, the public right-of-way, the driveways and sidewalks and pointed out that the surrounding properties have setbacks greater than 20 feet and the lot sizes are far greater than the proposed lot sizes; looking at all that, it is a far cry from maintaining the single family character. The appearance of the proposal would be more of four houses on one lot instead of a private street with four houses. He likes the idea, but not the current map. He said that it should be brought back with appropriate setbacks, increased driveways, the sidewalks and setbacks should be consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Rodriguez reviewed Downey Municipal Code 9106 (b) He commented that the neighborhood is being destroyed, and the applicant should be brought back with revisions that meet the General Plan. As it stands, he cannot support the request for the Tentative Parcel Map unless the changes are made because we don’t meet the General Plan or make the findings. Director Schindler stated that Commissioner Rodriguez is right in that the General Plan is a global guiding point for the City in a lot of different aspects in terms of how it’s laid out. That then percolates to the objective as to how you get to those ideals and put them into practice. Those are our development standards in our Code. The parcel map that you have in front of you meets the Code and hence, it meets the findings. He makes a good point, there are no private streets in that area; it doesn’t mean that they are not allowed or will be welcomed, and that is understood. In terms of the sphere of guidance that we have in the Municipal Code and the design standards, this meets it. He concluded that Commissioner Rodriguez brought up some really creative suggestions which could be entertained tonight. Commissioner Rodriguez responded by saying that he disagreed with Director Schindler in that the General Plan is our base; that’s why guidelines are set so as to prevent developments that Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 15 - don’t conform with it. Municipal Code 9106 (b) specifically states to maintain and enhance locally recognized value of community appearance, and to encourage development of property in such a manner as to not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of adjoining lands. The proposed lot split does not meet that particular Municipal Code section. Also, Code section 9312.02 (a) (4): encourage residential development that maintains the scale and the character of the existing residential neighborhoods. Code section 9312.08 also deals with the privacy and says, “use landscape to provide a buffer between properties”. We need to be consistent with our General Plan and Downey Municipal Code and this development as presented is not in conformity and does not fit here without the mitigating factor. Commissioner Morales stated that what they have is a subdivision, and in looking at this as a map, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, this is a very simple process. He said that they are not here to approve the house and the character of the area, or review specific elements of the structures. They are here to look at the map and the only questions that he has is that the map doesn’t show property lines or dimensions on the property line that are typical on this type of map. The actual configuration of the lots, does meet the standards for lots in that particular zone. He said that the historic aspect brought up earlier is a concern of his as he is a great supporter of historic preservation in town; the fact that we don’t have a list in place of historic properties is kind of disturbing. We need to direct staff to look at the aspect of what we need to do to start that process. Maybe starting with an inventory list, there are a lot of structures that are in town that may not qualify on a national list but certainly on a local list. We need to see if there is enough of that to put in place. As far as this lot here, we are a little bit too far gone in trying to restore that component on this particular lot. There are some aspects of this lot that remain that possibly can be reused, and it will be up to the current owner to make that decision. The columns are there, can they be reused somewhere else on site or implemented into the design of the current structures. If not, perhaps they can donate the items to our local Historical Preservation to utilize that somewhere else and make that part of the bike plan or one of our stops; the columns can be utilized to make a shelter for that. Maybe the applicant can work with our local Historic Conservancy. He gave examples of a project that he was a part of with a historical train that was moved to a park and now it is part of the Chamber of Commerce office. Maybe the applicant can work with the office to do something with the remains, but it cannot be conditioned because he is the owner of the remaining items. Looking at the map again, the minimum lots exceed the minimum standards; the driveway is similar to a more private cul-de-sac with houses on one side of the street. He does not see any issues with the subdivision and suggested that there be a condition that the sidewalks become part of the easement as opposed to being part of the lots themselves and the 20 foot setback could be taken from the back of the walk, which would be the edge of the easement. Addressing Mr. Davis, the 20 foot setback is the minimum; however the prevailing setback may be different, such as a neighborhood where they have a 30 foot setback that would be the prevailing setback for that block. Mr. Davis responded that in certain areas of the City that is correct, but not in this area. Commissioner Morales suggested that a mitigation measure be considered as a condition for this project. Chairman Lujan thanked the people of the community for speaking for and against this item. The Commissioners are aware this property is an important part of the Downey Community, and is a tough decision that has to be made. He said that he liked some of the ideas that Commissioner Morales and Mr. Redfox mentioned in preserving some of the remaining elements of the house elsewhere to preserve the memory of the home. In addition, perhaps staff can do a survey on a local level if there are other areas that need to be identified maybe not nationally but can be recognized by the State or City, or the Community; that way if someone purchases the land, they Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 16 - are aware of what they are going into. Chairman Lujan reopened the public hearing. Commissioner Morales addressed Mr. Redfox regarding the windows of the subject property that were kept somewhere and if he is aware of that. Mr. Redfox stated that there used to be a storage unit on the property and they were supposed to save the tile, windows and doors. There was tile from the fireplace that was also to be saved but was moved somewhere else, but he does not know the location. The columns, the trees and all that stuff is all historic; especially the two Palm trees that were are the very front of the property, were the marker trees. There are different areas that have these Palm trees that are marker trees for the older homes in the area. The property has two of them at the very front; the trees should be preserved. Chairman Lujan closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rodriguez asked if the Commission if they would entertain Commissioner Morales’ suggestion of increasing the public right-of-way, as well as his own suggestions that would meet the General Plan in keeping the harmony and character. Director Schindler asked the City Attorney if they have the ability to impose anything outside of the City Code, to which City Attorney Garcia stated that if the Code already governs that area, they should follow the Code; however, if the Code is not clear, then it gives us discretion, then yes you can impose a different width. It depends on the regulation that we’re following with respect to the width and the right-of-way if there is flexibility. Mr. Davis advised the Commission that he already discussed this situation with our Traffic Engineer who was in the audience. The proposed driveway width is in the City standards and is wide enough, not only to provide Fire Truck access at 20 feet, but also provides parking at 9-feet wide. There are specs in place that allow for a wider width; however, that is to follow if parking is on both sides of the street; however, the design per the Traffic Engineers evaluation of it, it meets the Code satisfactorily and is a desirable width. Director Schindler asked Mr. Davis if the Code allows us any flexibility in increase that width, to which Mr. Davis responded yes. The Commissioners discussed rolling sidewalks into walkway easements, curb aprons, increasing the public right-of-way, the driveway and the view from the street, and saving the two marker palm trees. Commissioner Rodriguez moved to deny the proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 73035, and direct staff to return with a resolution of denial. The motion dies for lack of a second. Vice-Chairman Flores moved that the Planning Commission approve the application with the conditions and seconded by Commissioner Morales with a request for an amendment to roll the sidewalk within the easement to bring the easement to 36 feet, to which Vice Chairman Flores agreed. Commissioner Rodriguez then asked that an additional amendment requiring that the applicant keep the palm trees that was suggested to have historical significance by Mr. Redfox. Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 17 - Commissioner Morales asked staff if the applicant can be required to do so, and was not sure if there are any plans to remove the palm trees. Mr. Davis stated that he had discussed the trees with the applicant early on, and the historic trees were placed there in 1957 not in the 1920s, so the historic significance has not been quantified; nevertheless, early on in the application process, the applicant said that they would be willing to save the trees and suggested that the public hearing be opened to ask the applicant the question. Chairman Lujan reopened the public hearing. Mr. Murguia stated that they spoke to Mr. Davis about the marker palm trees a long time ago and yes they are willing to keep and maintain the palm trees. Chairman Lujan closed the public hearing. City Attorney Garcia asked Mr. Davis for language to add the condition 30. City Planner Davis read Condition 30 into the record as follows: Condition 30: The applicant /property owner shall be required to maintain in place, the two existing palm trees located within the front yard setback of the subject property located along the Cherokee frontage of the subject site as described on Tentative Parcel Map No. 73305. City Attorney Garcia asked Vice Chairman Flores if he accepts the addition to his motion and if Commissioner Morales accepts the addition to his second, to which each responded by saying, yes. Commissioner Rodriguez asked for an additional amendment to retain the archway; to which the City Attorney advised that the design is outside of the scope of the application. It was moved by Vice Chairman Flores and seconded by Commissioner Morales with two amendments: 1) to increase the easement from 32 feet to 36 feet in order to include the sidewalk within the easement; and 2) add Condition No. 30: The applicant /property owner shall be required to maintain in place, the two existing palm trees located within the front yard setback of the subject property located along the Cherokee frontage of the subject site as described on Tentative Parcel Map No. 73305. The motion was passed by a vote of 4-1, with Commissioner Rodriguez voting no, thereby adopting the Negative Declaration, and approving the Tentative Parcel Map No. 73035 (PLN-14-00179). NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: 3. Approval of the Minutes from February 18, 2015 It was moved by Commissioner Morales, seconded by Commissioner Rodriguez, and passed by a 5-0 vote, to approve the Consent Calendar. Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 18 - OTHER BUSINESS: Commissioner Rodriguez suggested that staff to look into a listing as suggested by Commissioner Morales of historic sites, create standards and a historical preservation ordinance. Commissioner Morales clarified that his direction was to start with a survey and that would determine if you would go to an ordinance or historical element. Director Schindler advised the Commission that he has been involved in overseeing a historic survey of commercial and residential properties, and it is a monumental task. It’s not cheap, the cost would be anywhere from $30,000 to $60,000 to do it. Also, we had a lively discussion about personal property rights and the good of the community, and when you tell people that their property is designated as one way or another, you will open up a very lively discussion. If somebody owns apartments or the home that you live in and it’s designated as a certain way that you don’t agree, you have a very passionate discussion about how you would manage my property. You could say it could be grandfathered in; when it goes on the market, there will be an opinion that value is added to the property, and you will be adding a burden to the real estate transaction of that property because there have been restrictions that have been put in place as to how that property is to be used. Therefore, he recommended that they consider that before they proceed; the same goes with the ordinance. The devil is in the details; you could write a very restrictive one which would cause a great delay in how properties are improved, even someone going to Home Depot and thinking they’re going to swap out their windows; they could no longer do that. And when they swap them out wrong, then Code Enforcement will be at their door saying all those windows, it’s out, that door, it’s out. He has seen it and worked in other Communities where this occurred. They can craft an ordinance with the purest of intentions to the will and the thought of what historic property should be. Director Schindler advised the Commissioners to take some time to think about it and talk to people about it. If a majority of the Planning Commission that thinks that we should proceed with this, then we’ll move it to Council to see what they think before we do anything. Commissioner Rodriguez asked if it can be a more liberal route where the owner can be asked if they would agree to their property being considered, to which Director Schindler responded, by saying yes, but he might be watering down an ordinance that wouldn’t have any teeth. 4. Presentation of the Bicycle Master Plan: Director Schindler gave an introduction of the Bicycle Master Plan. The City Council in 2014 hired a company, Fehr and Peers, to assist the City with the design and creation of that Master Plan. The City Council has been hosting and will be hosting meetings on the topic; the City Council’s public hearing is scheduled for March or April of this year. Tonight we have the consultant to present the Master Plan for review and feedback; no formal action will be taken. Director Schindler introduced Miguel Nunez with Fehr and Peers, who will provide the presentation. Michael Nunez gave a brief history as a resident of Downey and his experience in riding his bicycle in the City. PowerPoint presentation of the proposed Bicycle Master Plan, which included views on cycling, levels of traffic stress where people do not feel safe and comfortable riding on the streets with traffic. The “Tour de Downey” was well attended because paths were created to make the cyclists feel safe and families were comfortable riding. After the event, hundreds of surveys were taken and reflected the preference of cycling; there was a public outreach and information was gathered. Mr. Nunez reviewed the framework of the City’s plans and policies, the existing conditions, proposed bicycling parking and facilities, support programs, and the implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan. The presentation included street views of the project plans for bike lanes, options and tools to plan a bike path, and bike routes. They are working with Public Works to find out how it will impact vehicular travel. Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2015 - 19 - Commissioner Rodriguez asked that once the plan is complete, if there is a major impact to the City, is an “unwind” considered, to which Mr. Nunez responded by saying that they can do things to enhance or eliminate it, which would be at the discretion of the City Council to modify. Chairman Lujan asked if they had taken into consideration that some streets are very dark at dusk, particularly Brookshire. If a cyclist is not wearing reflective clothing, they are very difficult to see. Mr. Nunez said that they had not looked into it and will have to do so. Vice Chairman Flores stated that he loved the presentation and hopes that this is where Downey is going. In regard to the bicycle parking in his experience working with private places, if biking becomes successful, is this a component of his research or outreach. Mr. Nunez stated the first way is to adopt a bicycle ordinance to require it. Savvy developers understand that this is the trend and will be little more proactive in trying to provide bicycle parking facilities or ask if the City has any standards in place for them. Finally, you can request that of the developers, and it is a relatively low cost to them and most would be able to do so as an act of good will. STAFF MEMBER COMMENTS: Vice Chairman Matias Flores reminded everyone to attend the February 28th workshop at Golden Park in the morning on the Parks and Open Spaces Plan that is being developed. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to discuss, Chairman Lujan adjourned the meeting at 10:12 p.m., to Wednesday, March 4, 2015, at 6:30 p.m. at Downey City Hall, 11111 Brookshire Ave. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th April, 2015. Hector Lujan, 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 15th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Mary Cavanagh, Secretary City Planning Commission