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