The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02. Request to Amend the General Plan at 10221 and 10303 Downey AveIL I 1 11 U. APPROVED P,!R BY TO, MAYOR ASHTON AND MEMBERS OF • FROM: OFFICE OF r• E. SCHINDLER,DIRECTOR OF • r i., DATE- I 2018 REQUESTSUBJECT: A • AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND REZONEi r AT 10221AND 10303 DOWNEY AVENUE That the City Council adopt.' RESOLUTIONi i 017 THE CITY • DOWNEY DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT r ZONER;i i AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION TOLOW-MEDIUMDENSITY RESIDENTIAL l REZONE TO iRESIDENTIAL) The subject site consists of two parcels that are located on the west side of Downey Avenue, south of Florence Avenue. The two parcels have a combined total size of 36,000 square feet and are each improved with a single-family residence. While both parcels have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential, the 10221 Downey Avenue is zoned C -P (Professional Office) and 10303 Downey Avenue is zoned R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential). Under the current General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning, the property owner can maintain the two homes that exist on the properties. The residence that is located on 10303 Downey Avenue could be expanded; however, the residence at 10221 Downey Avenue is non- conforming and would not be permitted to expand. The applicant has requested to change the General Plan Land Use Designation to Low -Medium Density Residential and rezone the properties to R-2 (Two -Family Residential). While no development application has been submitted, the applicant has indicated he intends to merge the two lots and develop the site with a residential development. Based on the allowances set forth in the R-2 zone, the maximum development potential for this site would be fourteen (14) units. The Zoning Code would limit the height to two -stories and would require 2.5 parking spaces per unit. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on May 2, 2018, to consider the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes. Although Staff recommended approval of the request, after public comment and deliberation, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the request. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission asked staff to bring back a resolution of denial for their consideration. On June 6, 2018, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-3056, by a 4-0-1 vote with Chairman Owens being absent, thereby recommending denial of the General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes to the City Council. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE JULY 10, 2018 During the Planning Commission publichearing, the applicant addressed the Planning Commission, along with five residents speaking in opposition of the application and one resident speaking in favor of the request. In addition to the speakers, the Planning Commission received six letters (attached as Exhibit "G") regarding this request. The Planning Commission found they could not make all the findings necessary to recommend approval of the project. In rendering their decision, the Planning Commission found that the proposed General Plan Amendment isnot consistent with all other goals, policies, programs, and land uses. The Planning Commission noted the designation of these properties was deemed Low Density Residential in 2005, as were the single-family residential properties located to the west of the subject sites. The intention of this designation was to support the low scale, low intensity uses that currently act as a buffer from the commercial uses along Florence Avenue and the high density uses along Downey Avenue and La Reina Avenue._ Changing the designation of the subject sites would go against General Plan Program 1.4.2.1, which discourages residential construction not in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, the Planning Commission found the proposed zone change is not necessary for the development of the community and does not further the public health, safety, and general welfare. The property owner of the subject sites is able to continue to develop the site consistent with the General Plan's Low Density Designation. Changing the zoning of these properties to the proposed R-2 zone would create higher density in this area, leading to adverse impacts on parking and traffic. FISCAL IMPACT This request will not have an impact to the general fund. Attachments: "A Resolution ,,B,, Maps "C Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts, dated May 2, 2018 "D P.C. Resolution No. 18-3056 "E" Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 2, 2018 "F Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 6, 2018 °G" -Correspondence Received 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DENYING r AND ZONE REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION TO LOW -MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALAND R • •- •, RESIDENTIAL) WHEREAS, on August 21, 2017, the applicant submitted a request for General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes for 10303 Downey Avenue and 10221 Downey Avenue; and, WHEREAS, on February 27, 2018, staff deemed the request complete; and, WHEREAS, on May 2, 2018, the Planning Commissionconducteda duly noticed public hearing. After fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to deny the requested application and directed staff to prepare an appropriate resolution; and, WHEREAS, on June 6, 2018, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-3056, by a 4- 0-1 vote with Chairman Owens being absent, thereby recommending denial of the General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, on June 28, 2018, notice of the pending public hearing was published in the Downey Patriot and mailed to all property owners within 500 -feet of the project sites in accordance with the requirements of the Downey Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 10, 2018, to fully consider all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions regarding the amendment to the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds, determines and declares the environmental impact of the proposed project has been reviewed and has been found to be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(4) wherein it states that a project is exempt from CEQA review when the project will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency; and, WHEREAS, having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearing, the City Council further finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Designation is not consistent with all other goals, policies, programs, and land uses. The designation of these properties was deemed Low Density Residential in 2005, as were the single-family residential properties located to the west of the subject sites. The intention of this designation was to support the low -scale, low intensity uses that currently act as a buffer from the commercial uses along Florence Avenue and the high density uses along Downey Avenue and La Reina Avenue. Changing the designation of the subject sites would go against General Plan Program 1.4.2.1, which discourages residential construction not in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood; and, Attachment " RESOLUTION NO. 18 - PAGE 2 WHEREAS, having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearing, the City Council further finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed zone change is not necessary for the development of the community and does not further the public health, safety, and general welfare. The property owner of the subject sites is able to continue to develop the site in consistency with the General Plan's Low Density Designation. Changing the zoning of these properties to the proposed R-2 zone would create higher density in this area, leading to adverse impacts on parking and traffic. NOW, • OF OF itDOES AEREBY RESOLVE • • SECTION 1. All the recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION 2. Based upon the findings set forth in this resolution, the City Council of the City of Downey hereby denies the request to amend the General Plan LandUse Designation for properties located at 10221 Downey Avenue and 10303 Downey Avenue to Low Medium Density Residential; and to rezone said properties to R-2 (Two -Family Residential). SECTION 3, The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of July, 2018. SEAN ASHTON, Mayor MARIA ALICIA DUARTE, CMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 11 PAGE 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Downey at a regular meeting held on the 1 oth day of July, 2018 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members: NOES4 Council Member: ABSENT: Council Member: ABSTAIN, Council Member: MARIA ALICIA DUARTE, CIVIC City Clerk 0 4 0 O 3 C CD CD O 3 CD O N CD G� 0 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DOWNEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVENUE DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA Chairman Owens called the May 2, 2018, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:32 p.m., at Downey City Hall, 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, CA. After the flag salute, Secretary Cavanagh called roll. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Miguel Duarte, District 1 Matias Flores,- District 4 Steven Dominguez,_ District 3, Vice Chairman Patrick Owens, District 2, Chairman COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: - Nolveris Frometa, .District 5 OTHERS PRESENT: Aldo E. Schindler, Director of Community Development Yvette Abich Garcia, City Attorney David Blumenthal, City Planner Monica Esparza, Senior Planner Mary Cavanagh,; Secretary PLANNING • - REQFUTURE AGENDA ITEMS; AN UEST FOR • • None. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA: None. PRESENTATIONS: None; REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL: Director of Community Development Schindler reported the City Council received the second reading for the ordinance allowing a code amendment for private schools' signs from K-12. Chairman Owens recused himself from PLN-17-00145'due to a`conflict of interest and exited the Council Chambers at 6:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PLN -17-00145 (Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment and Zone Ch + Vice Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing for PLN -17-00145 and Ms. Cavanagh affirmed proof of publication. Senior Planner Monica Esparza presented the request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation from Low -Density Residential to Low -Medium -Density Residential, and to rezone the properties located at 10221 Downey Avenue and 10303 Downey Avenue, currently zoned C -P (Professional Office) and R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential). Both lots are 18,000 sq. ft. in size, each improved with single-family homes built in 1952. Ms. Esparza reviewed surrounding zoning and the previous requests to rezone the properties beginning in 1959 to the current request. The most recent request to rezone the property from C -P to R-3 was denied by the Planning Commission on June 21, 2017. The applicant has returned with the current request to amend the General Plan Residential Land Use Designation for both properties to Low Medium Density Residential. Attachment /'► Attachment "C" Senior Planner Esparza discussed the uses allowed under the current zoning and proposed zone changes. A zone change to R-2 would allow the applicant to continue providing multiple -family housing along Downey Avenue at a lower density than R-3. There is currently a Low Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation along the east side of Downey Avenue. At this time, the General Plan Land Use Designation for 10221 Downey Avenue allows the construction of a five story office building, and the R-3 allows for up to 19 units. If the request is granted, the applicant intends to merge the two lots and develop the site with an R-2, two-family residential development, which allows up to 14 units. The Commissioners discussed the allowable uses under the current zoning and proposed zoning with staff.. Disclosures: None, Correspondence: Staff received one phone call and one letter in opposition of the project. Applicant Don Jervis, 10841 Paramount Blvd., Suite 203, Downey, reviewed the existing zoning that allows the construction of a five story office building and 19 units and the comments made at the previous hearing Public Comments: Armando Herman spoke in opposition of the request due to density and parking issues. Daniel Jimenez, 10218 La Reina St., Downey, spoke in opposition due to current density causing heavily congested streets. He expressedconcern that the development would only create more problems. Burt Solano, 10224 La Reina "St., Downey, spoke in opposition due to concerns with privacy as subject site abuts his rear yard. He said the area is already very heavily congested and the development will add to the current parking issues. Alicia Gomez, 10230 La Reina St., spoke in opposition reiterating the comments of previous speakers and found it unfair to allow a zone change for the applicant and not all residents. Yehia Zakaria. 12126 Orizaba Ave., spoke in favor of the project. He stated he grew up in Downey and believes the project will improve the city by giving those who wish to raise their families in Downey, but cannot afford to purchase a home. Alvin Gomez, 10230 La Reina St., discussed the current issues with parking congestion, density and crime in the area. He suggested crime would increase with the addition of 14 units at the site. Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Jervis stated he has been in real estate for 42 years and understands the neighbors not wanting the subject site to be developed as they have had the luxury of not having neighbors abutting their property for many years. However, it should be understood that the site would eventually be developed and not remain vacant. He explained that the design of the project will address the privacy of the neighbors to protect the neighbor's privacy. Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to approve the request for a Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (PLN -17-00145). Vice Chairman' Dominguez closed the public hearing: The Commissioners discussed the aspects of the previous hearing for this item and the applicant returning with a reduced proposed development to meet the public and Planning Commission's suggestions and the history of parking issues on La Reina St. -2- It was moved by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Vice Chairman Dominguez, by a 2-1-1-1 vote, with Commissioner Duarte voting no, Chairman Owens abstaining and Commissioner Frometa absent, thereby directing staff to return to the next hearing with a resolution of denial. Chairman Owens re-entered the Council Chambers at 7:32 p.m. 2. PLN -17-00112 Variance and Revision to a Conditional Use Permit): Chairman Owens opened the public hearing for the request for PLN -17-00112 and Ms. Cavanagh affirmed proof of publication. City Planner DavidBlumenthal gave a PowerPoint presentation of a request by Giant RV, to allow to the construction of an 8 (Eight) foot tall wrought iron fence along Florence Ave, and to display recreational vehicles next to the street frontage, on property located at 11111 Florence Avenue, zoned Florence Avenue/1-5 Specific Plan. He reviewed physical aspect of the current project and the previous approval by the Planning Commission to allow the operation of the dealership. He explained that the construction of the new 1-5 Florence Avenue Bridge has created unanticipated impacts to Giant RV's operation. The new bridge is taller and longer to accommodate the freeway widening, bringing the eastern half of the property up six feet below the street level of Florence Ave. The Commissioners discussed the current allowable height and location of the fence with staff. Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to approve the request for a Variance and Revision to a Conditional Use Permit (PLN -17- 0011`2). Disclosures: None. Correspondence: None. Applicant Frank Broody, representing Giant RV discussed the height and display of the RV's, and the complications created by the bridge construction. The Commissioners discussed the layout of Giant RV's other locations and their comparison to the Downey site with the applicant. Public Comments: Armando Herman discussed fees pertaining to public art. Applicant Rebuttal None. The Commissioners spoke in favor of the project: Chairman Owens closed the public hearing. It was moved by Vice Chairman Dominguez, seconded by Commissioner Duarte, and passed by a 4-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Frometa absent, to adopt Resolution 18-3051, thereby approving a Variance and Revision to a Conditional Use Permit (PLN -17- 00112). 3. 'PLN -1 8-00016 INegative Declaration and, Zone Tenet Amendment : Chairman Owens opened the public hearing for the request for PLN -18-00016 and Ms. Cavanagh affirmed proof of publication. City Planner David Blumenthal gave a PowerPoint presentation of the request to approve a Negative Declaration and Zone Text Amendment to allow a Biomedical Overlay Zone. The intent is to encourage the growth of the biomedical industry within the city by adding uses to the current zoning. The proposed action will amend both the text of the Zoning Code to accommodate the new biomedical uses and the Zoning Map, which will include five (5) areas of the City to be within the new Biomedical Overlay Zone. The proposed overlay zoning not only includes medical offices and care facilities, but also includes all of the necessary 3- i •I • • 10 1 DAN • 0 1 M WON• THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS; SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and declare that;: A. On August 21, 2017, the applicant submitted a request for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of 10221 Downey Avenue from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change to change the zone from C -P (Professional Office) to R-2 (Two -Family Residential); and change the land use designation of 10303 Downey Avenue from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and change the zone from R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential) to R-2 (Two -Family; Residential); .and, B. On February 27, 2018 staff deemed the application complete; and, C, In accordancewith the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, a notice of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration was posted at the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office on March 27, 2018; and, D. On March 29,-2018, notice of the pending application published in the Downey Patriot and mailed to all property owners within 500' of the subject site; and, E,; On April 18, 2018, the item was continued, at the Applicant's request, without public testimony; and, F.The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 2, 2018, and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing voted 2-1 to recommend denial of the request; and, G. On June 6, 2018 the Planning Commission adopted this resolution. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission further finds, determines and `declares the environmental impact of the proposed project has been reviewed and has been found to be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(4) wherein it states that a project is exempt from CEQA review when the project will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency. SECTION 3. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings regarding the General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that: Resolution No. 18-3056 Downey Planning Commission A. The proposed amendment is not consistent with all other goals, policies, programs, and land uses. The designation of these properties was deemed Low Density Residential in 2005, as were the single-family residential properties located to the west of the subject sites. The intention of this designation was to support the low -scale, low intensity uses that currently act as a buffer from the commercial uses along Florence Avenue and the high density uses along Downey Avenue and La Reina Avenue. Changing the designation of the subject sites would go against General Plan Program 1.4.2.1, which discourages residential construction not in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 4. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings regarding the Zone Change, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed zone change is not necessary for the development of the community and does not further the public health, safety, and general welfare. The property owner of the subject sites is able to continue to develop the site in consistency with the General Plan's Low tensity Designation. Changing the zoning of these properties to the proposed R-2 zone would create higher density in this area, leading to adverse impacts on parking and traffic. SECTION 5. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections,1 through 4 o this, resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Downey deny the request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation at 10221 Downey Avenue from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and deny the request to rezone the same property from C -P (Professional Office) to R-2 (Two -Family Residential); and deny the request to amend the General Plan land use designation at 10303 Downey Avenue from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and deny the request to rezone the same property from R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential) to R-2 (Two -Family Residential). SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution._ PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 2018. Steven Dominguez, Vice -Chairman City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of June, 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flores, Duarte, Frometa and Dominguez NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Owens ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None Ofiahta sianed6vWaryCavanagh Mary Cavanagh, Secretary City Planning Commission 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue— PLN -17-00145 June 6, 2018 - Page 2 Myof-Downey PLANNING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: DAVID BLUMENTHAL, CITY PLANNER PREPARED BY: MONICA ESPARZA, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: PLN -17-00145 (NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN - AMENDMENT, AND ZONE CHANGE) -A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION TO LOW -MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND REZONE TO R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOCATION; 10221 DOWNEY AVENUE & 10303 DOWNEY AVENUE ZONING: C -P (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) & R-3 (MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) REPORT SUMMARY Don Jervis, (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicant') is requesting a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for two properties, to amend the current land use designation of both from Low Density Residential to Low -Medium Density Residential and rezone one property from its current zone designation of C -P (Professional Office) to R-2 (Two -Family Residential); the Applicant is requesting to rezone the second property from R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential) to R-2 (Two -Family Residential). Pursuant to Code Section 9834, all General Plan Amendment and Zone Change requests must obtain approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Based on the analysis contained in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following titled resolution: • • [ • i 1 *1 91411A -• r The subject sites are located on the west side of Downey Avenue, south of Florence Avenue, and north of Lexington Road and are located directly adjacent to each other with 10221 Downey Avenue located to the north of 10303 Downey Avenue. 10221 Downey Avenue has an area of 18,000 square feet and is improved with a one-story, single-family residence that is approximately 1,700 square feet in size and was built in 1952. 10303 Downey Avenue also has an area of 18,000 square feet and is improved with a one-story, single-family residence that is approximately 1,405 square feet in size and was built in 1952. The current General Plan land use designation and zoning for 10221 Downey Avenue is Low Density Residential and C -P (Professional Office), respectively. The General Plan land use designation and zoning for 10303 Downey Avenue is Low Density Residential and R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential), respectively. The surrounding uses include a two-story, nine -unit apartment building directly adjacent and to the south of 10303 Downey Avenue, an office building directly north of 10221 Downey Avenue, one-story, single-family residences to the west of the sites, and a mix of single-family and multiple -family residences to the east of Downey Avenue, along Lexington Road. Downey Avenue between 7'h Street and. Florence Avenue ispredominantly improved with multiple -family residential developments in the form of apartments and condominiums. The zoning and land use designations for the surrounding properties are as follows: Low Density Residential Low Density Residential n and xistin Land Use - Zoning Existing Use C -P Single-family Residential R-3 Single-family Residential Ave North Office C -P Office South Medium Density R-3 Multiple -family Residential Residential East Low Medium Density R-1 10,000 Single-family & Multiple -family Residential Residential West Low Density R-3 Single -Family Residential Residential 10221& 10303 Downey Avenue = PLN -17-00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 2 Aggoda-RaggL 2 Project site as viewed from Downey Avenue The history of 10303 Downey Avenue is as follows: On April 22, 1959, the property owner, at the time, of 10303 Downey Avenue requested a Zone Exception from the Planning Commission to convert the existing single-family dwelling unit into a duplex and build a two-story, eight -unit apartment building to the rear of the lot. The Planning Commission denied the request, stating that there was still a considerable amout of properties zoned R-3 that were being used for single-family and therefore, "the property owner is not being denied a property right." After this decision, in 1978, the City Council approved a zone change of this property, including the single-family residential uses adjacent to this property, to change the zoning of these properties from R-1 5,000 to R-3, in an effort to create consistency with the General Plan which stated that these properties should be slated for R-3 development. On January 25, 2005, the 2025 General Plan was adopted. In this update, both 10221 Downey Avenue and 10303 Downey Avenue were re-evaluated and returned to Low Density Residential Land Use Designations. The history of 10221 Downey Avenue is as follows: On July 10, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6496 approving a General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Designation of 10221 Downey Avenue from Low Density Residential to Office. Thereafter, on July 24, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1105 approving the zone change of the subject site from R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential) to C -P (Professional Office). On March 15, 2017, the Applicant submitted a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for 10221 Downey Avenue for a potential R-3 development. This request was presented to the Planning Commission on June 21, 2017. The Planning Commission denied this request based on the increase in density; however, during the discussion, the Planning 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue — PLN -17-00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 3 i0=6". .. • " Commission indicated they would consider an option with lesser density, as they felt this would be more appropriate for the area. On August 21, 2017, the applicant submitted a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to amend the General Plan land use designation of both these properties from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and to rezone 10221 Downey Avenue from C -P (Professional Office) to R-2 (Two-family Residential), and 10303 Downey Avenue from R-3 (Multiple -family Residential) to R-2 (Two-family Residential). On February 27, 2018, Staff deemed the application complete. In accordance with California State Law, the notice of the pending public hearing was published in the Downey Patriot and mailed to all property owners within 500' of the subject site on March 29, 2018. The item was originally scheduled for April 18, 2018 but, at the Applicant's request, was continued to May 2, 2018 without public comment. DISCUSSION The applicantis the; property owner of both sites (10221 Downey Avenue and 10303 Downey Avenue). If the requests for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are granted, the -< Applicant intends to merge these two lots and develop the site with an R-2, two-family residential development. Plans for the development of these two lots have not been submitted however, it should be noted that R-2 development does not require Planning Commission review and would therefore be reviewed and approved at a staff level. In the event that the Applicant proposes a condominium development, the Planning Commission would review the Tentative Tract Map. The submitted application is solely to request a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for both of these sites. Pursuant to the City's Development Standards for R-2 lots, each lot can accommodate seven (7) units with a maximum lot coverage of 50% and a maximum building height of two -stories or 30 -feet, whichever is greater. As such, the Applicant could construct fourteen (14), two-story dwelling units. The development of these sites would include landscaping, two -car, enclosed parking spaces for the residents and 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking. Under the previous application to change the zoning to R-3, the lot sizes could have accommodated nineteen (19) units. R-2 development on these sites will produce fewer units than an R-3 development. General Plan Amendment According to State Law, the General Plan serves as a guide to the long-term physical development and growth of a community in 20 to 30 year increments. The plan identifies issues confronting the community and outlines the long-term goals to address them with policies and programs as steps to accomplish the goals of the plan. Since land use decisions; zoning regulations, and other policies by the City are required to be consistent with the General Plan, it is imperative that the General Plan be updated to reflect the changing concerns and needs of the community. The City of Downey's General Plan was first adopted in 1963 and was updated in 1973, and in 1992. The current General Plan, Downey Vision 2025 was adopted in 2005. During this latest update, 16 areas of the City underwent a change in Land Use Designation. The subject sites are located in Area 7; the land use designation was changed from Office to Low Density Residential. Based on staffs analysis of these properties and the area surrounding it, it seems as though this change occurred based on the current development of the lots as single-family residential, and not how these properties relate to the surrounding area. Downey Avenue has been improved with a significant amount of multiple -family residential developments. Atone change to R-2 would allow the Applicant the ability to continue providing 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue= PLN -17 00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 4 multiple -family housing along Downey Avenue at a lower density than R-3. Additionally, there is currently a Low Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation along the east side of Downey Avenue. This provides a seamless buffer between the high density and low density uses that exist within this area. Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Map The request to amend this designation from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential would provide a smooth transition between the high density apartment complexes that surround this area and the mix of single-family and two-family residential development to the east of Downey Avenue. Furthermore, Policy 1.3.1 of the General Plan states, "minimize or eliminate conflicts where incompatible land uses in proximity." This request is a good opportunity to comply with this intention, as the current development of these sites in proximity to office and multiple -family residential uses is not compatible. Figure 2, pictured on the next page, illustrates the proposed General Plan amendment and the transition referenced above. 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue PLN -17-00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 5 0.0 M'' Project Sites Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Zone Chanae The Downey Municipal Code implements the objectives of the General Plan by adopting regulations that seek to accomplish the goals of the General Plan. As such, the zoning designations that are outlined in the Municipal Code and shown in the Zoning Map must be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation. According to the General Plan, the Low Medium Density Residential designation is implemented when a property is zoned R-2 — Two -Family Residential. As previously stated, this would allow the Applicant to build fourteen (14) units on these lots, complete with parking for the residents and landscaping. This is less impactful than the current zoning of each of these properties, wherein an R-3 development of both of these lots would yield nineteen (19) units and an office development could yield a 36,000 square -foot and 5 story office building, directly adjacent to single-family residential. Furthermore, Downey Avenue is a fully -improved street. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, an average of 6.5 trips are generated per dwelling unit, in apartment complexes where 50% are entering and 50% are exiting on any given day. Downey Avenue is fully equipped to handle this increase in trip generation. Additionally, all R-2 development is subject to the development standards adopted in the Zoning Code, such as setbacks, height, and noise. This will ensure minimal impacts on then adjacent uses. 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue - PLN -17-00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE The City's Development Review Committee did not review this request as no development is proposed in association with this application. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff prepared an Initial Study of Environmental Impact, which was posted on the City's Website and with the Los Angeles County Clerk. The public comment period is from March 29, 2018 to April 18, 2018. As part of the CEQA process, staff conducted the required tribal consultation. Staff consulted with Andrew Salas, the Chairman of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation. Mr. Salas informed staff that there were no significant cultural resources associated with this location, but would like to be in contact with the Applicant prior to excavation of the site. Based on the Initial Study, public comment received, and tribal consultation, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a Negative Declaration. 31r•1K ;CCM, General Plan Amendment 1,. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with all other goals, policies, programs, and land uses of applicable elements of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with Policy 1.3.1 of the General Plan which states that the City must "minimize or eliminate conflicts where incompatible land uses are in proximity to each other." The location of the single-family uses on the subject sites is incompatible with the multiple -family residential developments to the south of the sites and the office use to the north. The change from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential allows for smaller -scale, multiple -family residential development in the area without the mass of Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation. 2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the surrounding environment. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the surrounding - properties or environment as the area is predominantly improved with higher density, multiple -family residential buildings. The future development of this property must comply with the standards of the R-2 zone, which have been adopted by the City of Downey, and are intended to be compatible with the area in which it is located. Additionally, According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, an average of 6.5 trips are generated per dwelling unit, in apartment complexes where 50% are entering and 50% are exiting on any given day. Downey Avenue is fully equipped to handle this increase in trip generation. 3. That the proposed General Plan Amendment promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare and serves the goals and purposes of this article. This land use designation is associated with the R-2 zone, which calls for less density than an R-3 development and a smaller scale development. The future development of 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue - PLN -17-00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 7 these sites will comply with all California Building Codes to protect the surrounding properties. Additionally,_ it serves the goals and purposed of the General Plan in that Program 1.3.1.2 intends to "promote certain land use designations or land use as buffers between incompatible land uses." The future R-2 would act as a buffer between the office use along Florence Avenue and the R-3 development to the south, while staying in character with the single-family residential units to the west. 4. That the proposed General Plan Amendment will not conflict with provisions of this article, including the City's subdivision ordinance. The proposed General Plan Amendment does not conflict with the provisions of this article, nor the City's subdivision ordinance in that it promotes various goals and programs of the General Plan and does not include a request to subdivide. 1. That the zone change is necessary and desirable for the development of the <community in harmony with the objectives of the General Plan and this chapter and is in the interest or furtherance of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The requested zone change is necessary to accommodate the development of the lots for Low Medium Density Residential. The existing zone of both of these sites is incompatible with the General Plan Land Use Designation, and must therefore be changed to allow the future development of the sites. Furthermore, it is in the interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare in that it will provide more housing opportunities for those who cannot currently find housing within the City. 2. That the zone change will be compatible and complementary to existing conditions and adjoining property in the surrounding area. The subject sites are currently developed with single-family residences that are approximately 1,700 square -feet and are adjacent to offices to the north, single-family residences to the west, multiple -family residential to the south, and a mix of single-family and multiple -family to the east. The requested zone change will be compatible and complementary to the existing conditions and adjoining properties in that multiple -family residential currently exists along Downey Avenue. The existing development of the sites is incompatible as is. Therefore, the zone change will accommodate the development of R-2 development, which would be more compatible with the area and the mix of single- family and multiple -family already existent in the area. 3. That the site is adequate in size to accommodate the uses permitted in the zone requested and that all applicable property development standards can be complied with. Although no development is proposed at this time, pursuant to Code Section 9312.08, the minimum size of an R-2 lot is 5,000 square feet. The subject sites both have a lot area of 18,000 square feet. The Applicant plans to merge both lots, which would allow compliance with all the property development standards for the R-2 zone. 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue = PLN -17-00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 8 4.: That the site properly relates to streets and highways designed and fully improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic that is expected to be generated in the area and that utilities exist or are planned which will adequately serve the property as rezoned. The subject site is located on the west side of Downey Avenue, south of Florence and north of Lexington Road. The approval of this zone change would allow the construction of up to fourteen (14) units. Downey Avenue is a fully -improved street. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, an average of 6.5 trips are generated per dwelling unit, in apartment complexes where 50% are entering and 50% are exiting on any given day. Downey Avenue is fully equipped to handle this increase in trip generation. 5. That the proposed zone change is in general conformance with the General Plan and General Plan land use designation for the parcel. The proposed zone change is consistent with Policy 1.3.1 wherein the General Plan states in intent is to "minimize or eliminate conflicts where incompatible land uses are in proximity to each other". This zone change would eliminate the incompatibility of two, - single-family residences in between multiple -family residential to the south and office to the north. In association with the General Plan Amendment to Low Medium Density Residential, the zone change will be compatible with the land use designation of these sites as the requested zone is R-2. On September 5,-2017, Staff began correspondence with Daniel Jimenez regarding the Applicant's intentions to develop the property. Email correspondence between staff and Mr. Jimenez is included as Exhibit "C". Additionally, since the originally scheduled meeting, staff has received three letters in opposition of the project. These letters are also included as Exhibit ,,C„ CONCLUSION The Applicant's request is to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation of 10221 Downey Avenue and 10303 Downey Avenue from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and to change the zoning of 10221 Downey Avenue from C -P to R-2 and the zoning of 10303 Downey Avenue from R-3 to R-2. Based on the analysis contained within this report, staff concludes that the findings can be made for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and that future development of these sites is in accordance with the intentions and goals of the City's General Plan. As such, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution, thereby recommending approval to the City Council of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change of the subject property. EXHIBITS A. Maps B. planning Commission Resolution C. Correspondence D. Initial Study and Negative Declaration 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue= PLN -17-00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 9 RW' ?!1 Aerial Photograph 102218 10303 Downey Avenue = PLN -17-00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 10 [ 0 — s m — ,' Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Map Existing Zoning Map 10221& 10303 Downey Avenue— PLN -17-00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 11 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Proposed Zoning Map 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue= PLN -17-00145' May 2, 2018 - Page 12 RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ZONE CHANGE TO R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 10221 DOWNEY AVENUE AND 10303 DOWNEY AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS; SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On August 21, 2017, the applicant submitted a request for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of 10221 Downey Avenue from Low Density; Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change to change the zone from C -P (Professional Office) to R-2 (Two -Family Residential); and change the land use designation of 10303 Downey Avenue from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and change the zone from R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential) to R-2 (Two -Family Residential); and, B. On February 27, 2018 staff deemed the application complete; and, C: In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, a notice of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration was posted at the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office on March 27, 2018; and, D:; On March 29, 2018, notice of the pending application published in the Downey Patriot and mailed to all property owners within 500' of the subject site; and, , On April 18, 2018, the item was continued, at the Applicant's request, without public testimony; and, F. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 2, 2018, and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing adopted this resolution. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that after preparing an Initial Study in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, which found that the project will not have a significant environmental impact. As such the Initial Study/Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from March 29, 2018 to April 18, 2018. Based on its own independent judgment that the facts stated in the initial study are true, the Planning Commission hereby adopts a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts. SECTION 3., Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings regarding the General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that: Resolution No. 18 - Downey Planning Commission A. The proposed General Pian Amendment is consistent with Policy 1.3.1 of the General Plan which states that the City must "minimize or eliminate conflicts where incompatible land uses are in proximity to each other." The location of the single-family uses on the subject sites is incompatible with the multiple -family residential developments to the south of the sites and the office use to the north. The change from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential allows for smaller -scale, multiple -family residential development in the area without the mass of Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation. B. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the surrounding properties or environment as the area is predominantly improved with higher density, multiple -family residential buildings. The future development of this property must comply with the standards of the R-2 zone, which have been adopted by the City of Downey, and are intended to be compatible with the area in which it is located. Additionally, According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, an average of 6.5 trips are generated per dwelling unit, in apartment complexes where 50% are entering and 50% are exitingon: any :given day. -Downey Avenue isfullyequipped: to handle this increase in trip generation. C. This land use designation is associated with the R-2 zone, which calls for less density than an R-3" development and asmaller` scale development. The future development of these sites will comply with all California Building Codes to protect the surrounding properties. Additionally, it serves the goals and purposed of the General Plan in that Program 1.3.1.2 intends to "promote certain land use designations or land use as buffers between incompatible land uses." The future R-2 would act as a buffer between the office use along Florence Avenue and the R-3 development to the south, while staying in character with the single-family residential units to the west. D. The proposed General Plan Amendment does not conflict with the provisions of this article, nor the City's subdivision ordinance in that it promotes various goals and programs of the General Plan and does not include a request to subdivide. SECTION 4. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings regarding the Zone Change, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that: A. The requested zone change is necessary to accommodate the development of the lots for Low Medium Density Residential. The existing zone of both of these sites is incompatible with the General Plan Land Use Designation, and must therefore be changed to allow the future development of the sites. Furthermore, it is in the interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare in that it will provide more housing opportunities for those who cannot currently find housing within the City. B. The zone change will be compatible and complementary to existing conditions and adjoining property in the surrounding areas. The subject sites are currently developed with single-family residences that are approximately 1,700 square -feet and are adjacent to offices to the north, single-family residences to the west, multiple -family residential to the south, and a mix of single-family and multiple -family to the east. The requested zone change will be compatible and complementary to the existing conditions and adjoining properties in that multiple -family residential currently exists along Downey Avenue. The 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue— PLN -17-00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 2 Resolution No. 18 - Downey Planning Commission existing development of the sites is incompatible as is. Therefore, the zone change will accommodate the development of R-2 development, which would be more compatible with the area and the mix of single-family and multiple -family already existent in the area. C. The site is adequate in size to accommodate the uses permitted in the zone requested and that all applicable property development standards can be complied with. Although no development is proposed at this time, pursuant to Code Section 9312.08, the minimum size of an R-2 lot is 5;000 square feet. The subject sites both have a lot area of 18,000 square feet. The Applicant plans to merge both lots, which would allow compliance with all the property development standards for the R-2 zone. D. The site properly relates to streets and highways designed, and fully improved, to carry the type and quantity of traffic that is expected to be generated in the area and utilities exist which will adequately serve the property as rezoned. The subject site is located on the west side of Downey Avenue, south of Florence and north of Lexington Road. The approval of this zone change would allow theconstruction of up to fourteen (14) units. Downey Avenue -is-afully-improved street.. According to the -Institute -of Transportation" Engineers, an average of 6.5 trips are generated per dwelling unit, in apartment complexes where 50% are entering and 50% are exiting on any given day. Downey Avenue is fully equipped to handle this increase in trip generation. E. The proposed zone change is in general conformance with the General Plan and General Plan land use designation for the parcel. The proposed zone change is consistent with Policy 1.3.1 wherein the General Plan states in intent is to "minimize or eliminate conflicts where incompatible land uses are in proximity to each other". This zone change would eliminate the incompatibility of two, single-family residences in between multiple -family residential to the south and office to the north. In association with the General Plan Amendment to Low Medium Density Residential, the zone change will be compatible with the land use designation of these sites as the requested zone is R-2. SECTION 5. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections`1 through 4 of this resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Downey approve the request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation at 10221 Downey Avenue from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and approve the request to rezone the same property from C -P (Professional Office) to R-2 (Two -Family Residential); and amend the General Plan land use designation at 10303 Downey Avenue from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and rezone the same property from R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential) to R-2 (Two -Family Residential). [Signatures on next page] 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue- PLN -17-00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 3 Resolution No. 18- A UdTIOW6. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.� Patrick Owens, Chairman City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2 nd day of May, 2018, by the following •'- to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS. W 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue- PLN -17-00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 4 Resolution No. 18 - Downey Planning Commission General Plan Maps Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Map Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Map 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue— PLN -17-00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 5 UT4=1 a F I Resolution No. 18 - Downey Planning Commission Zoning Maps Existing Zoning Map Proposed Zoning Map 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue— PLN -17 00145 May 2, 2018 - Page 6 Monka 4p.za From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) <Daniel.jimenez@jpl.nasa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 10:11 AM To: Monica Esparza Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC �U,Cf7C I r a_0V Off, (818)393-5943 Cel. (562)760-1791 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND Dozs NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TEGMICAL DATA. From: Monica Esparza [mailto:mesparza@downeyca.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 9:54 AM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Daniel, The project has to go through CEQA review, so it will be going to the Planning Commission on April 4'h. you will receive notice when itis time. Thank you, Monica Esparza Senior Planner fii City,) [ Downey 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 office: (562) 904-7154 From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [maiIto:Daniel.3imenez@jpl.nasa.gov] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 10:07 AM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Thank you for the information, I believe IT end up applying for a general plan amendment, since it seems everything with the city is on a case by case bases. Agenda Page 19 Low Density housing is definitely not what the now owners of the Downey Ave will be developing, if approved; so I don't understand the double standard with our properties; In any case, is the city planning meeting still scheduled for March 7`h; because I've yet to receive any information for the city nor have my neighbors, Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC off. (818)393-5943 Cel-. (562)760-1791 CO (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 PHIS is BEuN RUVXMVED FOR EXPORT CONTRo.LAND DoEs Nor ConTAxN,r-•• _.rn trolled Tscm.TcAL DATA From: Monica Esparta [ma ilto: me pa r aid n Cason] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:24 AM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Daniel, R3 development requires the approval of a Site Plan Review. In order for the Planning Commission to approve a Site Plan Review, there are findings that need to be made. These findings are as follows: (a) That the site plan is consistent with the goals and polices embodied in the General Plan and other applicable plans and policies adopted by the Council; (b) That the proposed development is in accordance with the purposes and objectives of this article and the zone in which the site is located; (c) That the proposed development's site plan and its design features, including architecture and landscaping, will integrate harmoniously and enhance the character and design of the site, the immediate neighborhood, and the surrounding areas of the City; (d) That the site plan and location of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicate that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effects of the development from the view of the public streets; (e) That the proposed development will improve the community appearance by preventing extremes of dissimilarity or monotony in new construction or in alterations of facilities; (f) That the site plan and design considerations shall tend to upgrade property in the immediate neighborhood and surrounding areas with an accompanying betterment of conditions affecting the public health, safety, comfort, and welfare; and 2 (g) That the proposed development's site plan and its design features will include graffiti -resistant features and materials in accordance with the requirements of Section 4960 of Chapter 10 of Article IV of this Code. Monica Esparza Senior Planner Lp� �, City.-4Downey 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562) 904-7154 Email: (nqjpLdLzL1@g9#_n_e-y-C—a-oM Qa y From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [UM&o. igJXniqr►ez@jpj.nasa. Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 5:21 AM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Good morning Monica, I'm a bit confused as to how the "General Plan" is being applied-, maybe you can help me out here. If I understood you correctly; even though I'm zoned for an R-3 (and purchased my property because of this) I cannot exercise it because the Downey General Plan is calling for low density? 1f that's the case, why is the City/Planning even considering building the apartments/condos behind my property? Shouldn't the General plan be an all for one plan and be the same for everyone? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Gilnie-: Jimeiiez@ nay a,,,qov off, (818)393-5943 COMM (818)393-5800 Cel. (562)760-1791 FAX (818)393-0612 From: Monica Esparza [—m3�slt �,,Me �arz �oe Icaor ] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 22:42 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue O I apologize for getting back to you so late. In order for you to use your property as an R3 use, you would have to apply for a General Plan Amendment since the Land Use designation for your site is Low Density Residential. The Code states that if an R3 property is used for single-family, it must follow the R-1 5,000 development standards. As such, these standards do not allow for a second unit. Additionally, the maximum height for a detached accessory structure, i.e. a garage, is 12 -feet. So you wouldn't be allowed to build on top of your garage. I hope this helps. Thank you, Monica Esparza From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [Daniel.Jimenez@jpl.nasa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 1:40 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Kind Regards; Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel Jimenez@tel nasa.a Off, (818)393-5943 Cel. (562)760-1791 CO (818)393-5800 FAX (818) 393-0612 THIS DocmwxT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TECHIVICAL DATA. From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 5:30 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue I wanted to look into the option of building another unit on my lot since it's an R=3 I'd like to either build on top of my garage or an independent unit; what would be my options er Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel Jimenez@al Hasa Dov Off. (818)393-5943 0 Cel. (562)76-1791 COMM (818)393=5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DocwwNT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TzcHNrcAL DATA, From: Monica Esparza [r :m p rza downs c .or 1 Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 5:28 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue 4 It's going to be going to the Planning Commission. No, in building permits, depending on the project, only a property owner or licensed contractor can pull the permit. What type of development are you inquiring about? From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [[pailLo.—Daniel. Q2Z PCA4!aQ_0Y � Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 5:25 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Monica, Thank you for the information. Is this a city planning hearing or a city hall meeting? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC paniel,jime z@)p Hasa, c�ov Off. (818)393-5943 Cel. (562)760-1791 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TECHNICAL DATA. From: Monica Esparza [mailto:rnesDarza@dcaw ne_Y0."r I Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 5:13 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Daniel, This has been schedule for the March 7th hearing. Notices will go out 2 weeks prior. Monica Esparza Senior Planner L,'I Downey 118 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA B.0 Office: (562) 904-7154 From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [maiito,.D ni I,Jin ene —1-nas"00Y] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 3:38 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Happy new year, Would you be able to provide me the current status of this application? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel .Jimenez@IP1,nasa.goy Off. (818}393-5943 Cel. (562)760-1791 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THis DocumENT HAs BEEN REviETtwD FOR Expomr, CONTROL AND Dozs NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled ncmxcAL DATA. From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 7:55 AM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Thank you for all your answers Monica. I'll see you at the hearings Oe Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel .JimeriezUp1.nasa,qov Off -5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THxs DocubxNr HAS BEm RuvxEwrD FoR ExPoRT CoNTRoz AND DOES NOT ComTAiN EXPORT -Controlled Tzcxmic-x.L DA!rA. From: Monica Esparza [M es ar�zd W Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 5:04 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Daniel, 6 You would not have received any notifications regarding the application because we are still going through the environmental process. As -for hn~^ other1heP!anning Commission inthe body that would be able 1oanswer themand they havethe�\8/ D�|mmy�ewiUbmmaking a recom- questions.~�^thefindingsof'fact tmauppn�that PeconOnleOdat\oOhave not been ' - -- ' 'approval,--' finalized, therefore | cannot opeoUDoaUy�nmwer those qu�stioneatthis time. You will receive anotice inthe mail regarding the public hearing when it gets schedule with the Planning Commission. Thank you for your understanding, uWcnicaEsparza Senior Planner L' I City,-4Downey 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA9OZ4l 'Office: ^(582)"904-7 Email: Mp5patZa@Ag#ne)tCa.Q!9 ` From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [024ijLQ-,D-a-o-ie-ljil—ngDgz-@jP-�a, ]l9v] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 7:35 AM To: MonicoEspomo Cc, Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 1D221Downey Avenue Hope all iswell; can you answer myquestions below and provide n1ethe current status cfthe application? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez ZZz Network Communications Specialist (NCS) aeL/ooN-oSoc e COMMOff. (818)393-5943 (ezo)sBz-s000 Cel. (562)760-1791 FAX (818)393-0612 From: Jimenez, Daniel Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12/26 PM To: MnnicaEspanxe Cc: Jimenez, Danie|(9ZD0'Affi|iate) Subject: RE: 1U321Downey Avenue Thank you for the reply; |have a~�~final questions as|believe that our last resort wiUbe to wait until the hearings. Here are my questions, I'm just curious to understand the city planning side of things: N jm You as City Planning don't consider the area where the proposed development is, to be already densely populated toadd another I2units? ` ,° What isthe added benefit other that the developer making money? ' w How does this help the city ofDowney? -• Can you let me know from your point of view what we gain as a community by allowing this development? Thank you, after this I'll just wait till the first round nfhearings, Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications specialist (NCS) oeL/oSN-oSOc Off. (818)393-5943 COMM (818)393-5800 Cel. (562)760-1791 FAX (818)393-0612 ` Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 11:28 AM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 0221 Downey Avenue Hi Daniel, | apologize for the delay |aresponding tnyour questions. See myresponses `below: � VVhatchanged orbetter yet; what is the perceived benefit to changing the rezoning and adding these units that the city council and planning commission are considering it? They are proposing an R2 development which would lirnit the height to 2 -stories and reduce the number of units than an R3 would allow. • Has the owner consider just developing 4 units? As in a duplex on each property? Once the parcels are rezoned, they are going to merge the two lots to make it one development site. I do not know if the owner has considered this. They are looking atbuilding 1Zunits at the moment, However, development ofthe site will not come until much later. "w Does the planning commission oonsidertheloss ofprivacy and valid issue; since the current houses are only one story and the planned units will be two or three with clear visibility to our backyards and property |mis7 The proposed units can only be maximum of 2 -stories, Privacy is an issue you are welcome to bring up during the public hearing. • How high can they build these units if approved? Two -stories or 30 -feet, whichever is less. The 30 -feet is measured from the top ofthe nearest curb tothe highest point ofthe roof. ^m What's the height limitation of the backside wall dividing the properties? The maximum height of walls and fences along the rear and side property lines of residential properties is 7 -feet, measured from the highest , finished grade. w What would the property owners on La Reins have to do in order to have our properties part of the amended general plan since they are considering amending itfor these properties? Can our properties beincluded and be amended atthe same time? General Plan Amendments must he initiated by either the City Council or the Planning Commission. if you would like to amend the General Plan designation for your properties, you would have to gather consent from all the property owners and submit a request to initiate a General Plan Amendment for the area. The fee for this is a one-time application fee of $250, it would not be a part of this General Plan Amendment as we would have to look at environmental impacts on the amendment of the entire area. Monica Esparza Associate Planner OWTIey 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562) 904-7154 Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 9:35 AM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE, 10221 Downey Avenue I case you missed mylast e-mai| here itbbelow, |f`�—have time I'd like toknow the answers, Also, what is the current status of the new application? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez XXX Network Communications Specialist (NC JPL/ooN-oSoc Of . (818)393-5943 COMM (818)393-5800 Cel. (5e2)760 -17e1 FAX (e18)393-0612 From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 14,35 PIVI To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue • What changed orbetter yet; what is the perceived benefit to changing the rezoning and adding these units that the city council and planning commission are considering it? • Has the owner consider just developing 4 units? As in a duplex on each property? *" Does the planning commission consider the loss of privacy and valid issue; since the current houses are only one story and the planned units will be two or three with clear visibility to our back yards and property lots? • How high can they build these units ifapproved? w What's the height limitation of the backside wall dividing the properties? ^* What would the property owners on La Reina have to do in order to have our properties part ofthe amended general plan since they are considering amending it for these properties? Can our properties be included and be amended at the same time? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez IXX Network Communications Specialist {NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Da ri L rae rie> 01 X1, 1 _f -L. Dv Off. y(818)393 N5943 COMM (818)393-5800 Cel (562)760-1791 FAX (616)393-0612 From: Monica Esparza [mailto�mes ar Wnev-3-orgy Sent: Wednesday, September 13,_2017 13:40 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Good afternoon Daniel, The maximum amount of units he can have if these two lots are zoned R-2 is 14 units. However, because of parking and landscaping requirements, the applicant is planning to submit for 11 or 12 units. This is less than the _19_units they could have built if it was zonedR3. They have not submitted development plans for the project because the rezoning of the lots needs to take place prior to us being able to review a proposal for R2. The Planning Commission and the City Council are open to amending the general plan and zoning map to accommodate the R2 development. There will be another'Planning Commission hearing for this project. You will be notified of this hearing when the date is set. Monica Esparza Associate Planner L91 �� City -,!Downey 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office; (562)904-7154 Email: mesoarza dow eyc�a.c-rg From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [rrt it o: diel Jim nezCc tpl:; a a v] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 7:12 AM To: Monica Esparza Subject: Re: 10221 Downey Avenue Good morning Monica, Thank you for the reply; I figured they would reapply. I do have a few questions if you don't mind. What is the maximum amount of units he can put in an R2 zone? Have they submitted any actual plans to develop? Has the city planning committee made a decision or are they standing by their no change to the general plan? Is there going to be another city planning hearing? 10 Kind regards, Daniel Jimenez III (626)824-6613 Whone On Sep 12, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Monica Esparza <r g Garza@downeyca.or > wrote:; Hi Daniel, The property owner did submit anew application to change the zoning of both properties to R-2. This still means multiple -family housing, however, it is less density than R-3 would allow. Density for the R-2 zone is 1 unit/ 2, 500 SF and R-3 is 1 unit/ 1,815 S.F. Let me know if you have more questions. Thanks, <irn3g 401'jp ? 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562) 904-7154 Email: rites arta down e ca.or' From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [mailt :Daniei.Jirnenczfipl.€ v] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 2:14 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Monica, Hope you had a great labor day break. I just wanted to follow up and see if there has been any recent movement on behave of this property and the new owners. Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel Jime,rierC� Off (818)393 5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 CO (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DocLmNT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TECHNICAL DATA. From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 10:20 AM To: Monica Esparza Subject: Re: 10221 Downey Avenue 11 0 I definitely will, but as a favor can you keep my contact info and if anything starts up again let me know, if possible; That way I'm ahead of the curve .). Kind regards, Daniel Jimenez III (626)824-6613 Phone On Aug 22, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Monica Esparza <mesprza downevcator > wrote: He would have to restart at the Planning Commission level again. So please keep an eye out for that notice when you get it. Thanks, Monica s rza Associate Planner <irnage00LjPg> 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey; CA 90241 office: (562) 904 7154 Email: rnospArza@ downeyca,er From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) mailt :D rtielaJir en z ' l.nas Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:33 AM To: Monica Esparza Subject: Re: 10221 Downey Avenue Good morning Monica, Thank you for keeping me informed. Unless you have an idea of what the new owner plans to do with the property; l don't have any other questions for now. As I mentioned in my other email, hopefully it's not just a tactic to catch us off guard and resubmit it while we aren't paying attention. Since he withdrew the application, would he have to start the process all over again or can he restart it and begins where he last left off? Kind regards, Daniel Jimenez III (626)824-6613 Phone On Aug 22, 2017, at 8:36 AM, Monica Esparza <mes arza-- downeyca or > wrote. Good morning Daniel, The City Council will not be discussing the project tonight since the Applicant withdrew his application. It is my understanding that the Council would have upheld the Planning Commission's 10 Ir. M 011 Lor, 14 L41 am W-4 a to I -A a 0*1711111 W16e - 6 6 Monica Esparza Associate Planner <innage001JPg> 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 office: (562) 904-7154 Email: rneil�ri*oowfi From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [Riatw.PaLn1gLLJJMpL nez@jp jLaja-g_0V] L _ _ Sent: Monday, August 21, 201711:26 AM To: Monica Esparza Cc; Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Monica, I just wanted to ask -if the -City council Will actually meetonthis topic tomorrow? If so, would you have any recommendations wheel speak to them to oppose the project? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel . Jime- nez , iJpl.-na.9-a"."g Off. (818)393-5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THXS DOCUM&WT HAs B=N P,,,,-v1EwgD FoR ExPoRT CoI AnD DMS NOT CoNrAiN ExPoRT-Controlled TzcnNICAL DATA. From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 2:51 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. I appreciate it. I'll just stay quiet until August 22"d @. Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC 13 Da C11C`1. T i 1Ti': l �. 1 it i- x �'CV .a .. , .,. Off, (818)393-5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 COMM (818)393-5800 FAx (8 18) 393-0612 THIS DaCU NT HAS BmN RLViKwED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TEcHNxcAL DATA. From: Monica Esparza [mall ' :mes arta do+ n&y .org] Sent: Monday, August 07 2017 2:34 PM , To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue I'm assuming it was because there is a provision in the Code that prohibits overgrown weeds and debris on private property. Also, in order for any kind of construction to start, they Would need a Building Permit. In order to obtain the Building Permit, they would need approval of a Site pian Review„ which wouldn't happen unless the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change ars approved. So that would take sometime. Monica Esparza Associate Planner <1mage001,.jpg> 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562)"904-7154 Email: esoaradowneyca.0r8 From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) m ll pL nlei' lm nez j C vasa ov] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 2:19 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hopefully the city council sides with you, I asked because I noticed they were already clearing things out over the weekend. However, I don't know if that was just regular maintenance to the property. Thank you for all your help during this process, Rind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Off. (818)393-5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 14 THIS Docuzgmnr HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND Doss NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled 7tCWqxcAL DATA, From: Monica Esparza Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 1:50 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Daniel, I don't think the direction of the decision has changed. Monica Esparza Associate Planner <irnage00LjPg> Downey, CA 90241 office: (562) 904-7154 Email: mesparza@downey 1.Or From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [mailLo2Daniel .Jimene7.@1p rLasa.ggy] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 12:50 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Monica, I understand, thank you for the update. Do you feel things are changing and it my get approved? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC D a n i e 1 na sa . (Lo 818)393-5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DocumuNT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND Dozs NOT CONTAIN ExPoRT-Con trolled TzcziNxcAx DATA. From: Monica Esparza [tng$LltA.'-M--e-SP-ar-Z-a-Ca-d-O—w-n-eY-C-a-."r I Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 12:31 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Daniel, Last time, the Mayor wanted sufficient time to review the project. This time, the City Manager will be out of town. The Council has 15 expressed that they prefer to have the City Manager present when deciding on General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes since these are legislative actions. EsparzaMonica Associate Planner 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 o 904-7154 From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [rnailtoaQanitUirnene s .nas MV] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 12:27 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Monica, Thank you for this information. I will inform my neighbors. Would you know why this item keeps getting pushed and rescheduled? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Danioi iimeriO z@ 1 ..t1 Off. (818)393-5343 Cel. (626)824-6613 CO (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS Loom-zNT HAS BEEN REVIEWED -FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TEcwxcAL DATA. From: Monica Esparza [ l_o-*mes arta diownevca.orgI Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 12:15 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Daniel, I just wanted to let you know that the Zone Change has been rescheduled, again, to the Tuesday, ;August 22, 2017 City Council hearing. Please notify your neighbors. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Monica Esparza Associate Planner <iMage001.jPg> 11111 Brookshire Avenue 16 Downey, CA 90241 #ffice: (562) 904-7154 F-wRil- tA6564U I From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [EiALOWD _ anitUirnezM'1LLn gv] tn Au - o - — Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:03 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: David Blumenthal; Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Monica, Thank you for reaching out to me this afternoon and for your assistance during this planning phase. I just want to make sure that my neighbors and I have the opportunity to attend and express our concerns to the city council in person. Kind-Regards,- Daniel ind Regards,Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel.-Jimene Off. -(818)393-5943 Cel: (626)824-6613 COM (818)393-5800- FAX 818)393-5800FAX (818)393-0612 TRis DocumENr HAs BMW REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DoEs NOT CoNTAiN ExPoRT-Controlled TEcwqxcAL DATA. From: Monica Esparza [ aim renes rz�adowneySa Or Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 2:40 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Cc: David Blumenthal Subject: 10221 Downey Avenue This email serves as written proof that the originally scheduled request for a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment for 10221 Downey Avenue on July 11, 2017 will be continued to the August 8, 2017 City Council hearing at 6:30 p.m. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Monica Esparza Associate Planner <1rnage001.jPg> 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562)!304-7154 Email: fflesparta @downeySA or .. g 17 Monica Esparza From: Donna Carkeek <donna.carkeek@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:44 AM To: Monica Esparza Subject: Projects at 10221 and 10303 Downey Ave Dear Ms. Esparta, I received the 'notice of public hearing' related to the projects listed above which noted that "all interested parties are invited to submit written comments and/or to attend and give testimony." It was unclear how or to whom to send written comments so I am sending mine to you with the hope that you can get them to the appropriate person/place. I am opposed to the development of "up to 14 units" on these two single family lots. I live just down the street at 10361 Downey Ave and, while our condo complex - Charmac Manor - has a two car garage for each unit, there is a huge parking issue all along this area of Downey Ave (and worse on La Reina one block west) due to existing multi family units - both condos and rental units. The traffic on Downey Ave has increased, perhaps with the construction of the new complexes on 2nd and 3rd as well as the huge complex on Paramount. We have had an increase in street racing late at night and, while there is a red curb on the Downey Ave side of our complex, (but none on the La Reina side) there are; frequently cars and a Spectrum van (parked overnight by a resident of the rentals to the north of ourcomplex) which park in the red zone making it very difficult to safely move from our driveway into oncoming traffic in the street. I never see the red zone violations: ticketed. I also frequently walk around the neighborhood and, on La Tina in particular, cars park up to the stops and on the corner blocking the sidewalks for crossing. Cars on 7th and on New street; behind the church park on the garage apron blocking the sidewalk/public access. The addition of 14 units on those lots will only add to the parking and traffic congestion - the Downey and Florence intersection does not have a left turn light which makes turning left hazardous and people going east on Florence frequently turn right on red onto Downey without stopping - I've had several close calls crossing Florence at the light because people fly down the street and turn right on red not seeing me in the crosswalk blocked by cars in the other lanes. Crossing Florence and Paramount l have nearly been hit several times by rolling }stops' who are texting or on their phones and dodged cars making u -turns at the signed'no a -turn' light. There are no traffic enforcement resources around. Based on my observations and experiences I think Downey needs to add more traffic and parking enforcement just to address the current issues. The signs on La Rema behind OLPH school say "20 minute parking 7-0 & 2- 411 - 4'1- this'is never enforced and either it should be or the signs should be removed. With the addition of all the new housing in Downey I hope that the city reviews and adjusts the police and fire resources to an appropriate level. I also think that there should be (enforced) red zones on every driveway exiting from a muti=unit complex, In addition to traffic and parking I have concerns about adding additional burden to the existing water and sewer resources/infrastructure. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Best regards Donna Carkeek 10361 Downey Ave Downey CA Y A e nda Pae 36 george & Donna Boose TO: Planning Commission City of Downey Mill 91TIMU-61"M A previous declined request for amendments to land usage designations allowing construction of 14 units has reappeared. The fine print may be Merent but the outcome i s basically unchanged �� the' ability to construct 14 housing units. A recent article in the Downey Patriot vividly pointed out the problems associated with continued construction of multiple housing complexes in our city. Also, the concerns we raised before remain the same. Flooding an area with more vehicles scrambling for a place to park when the already limited parking has reached an overly saturated level is completely contrary to the public welfare. Even if two spaces are provided for each new unit, reality tells us that families frequently use the space for storage instead of parking. Plus, they often have multiple cars, visitors, and relatives. We invite you to visit the neighborhood at various times during the day and you will witness cars double parked, intruding onto driveways and curbs painted red, in front of fire hydrants, etc. In addition, we now understand the church at the corner of Downey Ave. and Florence will be opening a school, increasing traffic congestion. We urge a negative finding. Sincerely, Aniv, Ca7"� Georg'e'T Donna Boose RECEIVED 10330 Downey Ave., Unit 10 APR i PLANNING Monica Esparza 11111 11 11 IN I I I From: Meldy Avila <nursemeldy@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 9:21 PM To: Monica Esparza Subject: OPPOSE General Plan Amendment and Zone Chane 10221 & 10303 Downey Ave Hello Ms. Esparza, I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT DEVELOPING 14 UNITS on THIS LOT that currently only occupies two single story homes WILL ADD PROBLEMS TO OVERCROWDING AND PARKING ISSUES AND MAKE DOWNEY AVENUE JUST AS BAD AS THE OTHER STREETS I HAVE MENTIONED. THESE DEVELOPERS/REALTORS &I KNOW THE CITY IS FOCUSED ON MAKING MORE MONEY/REVENUE but PLEASE consider the residents and owners who live here and who have taken pride in their community. Unfortunately we are the ones who will have to bear the burden of overcrowding and other problems (WATER/SEWERITRASH/ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES) if this gets approved. I used to love Downey, when it was a quieter city, now I'm having second thoughts due to HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF NEW RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE CONDO UNITS ARE BEING ERECTED EVERYWHERE, INCLUDING THE ONES ON PARAMOUNT & NEXT TO BACK OF AMERICA (ON LA REINA). Can't we just leave some open space to breath?? Create more parks instead of buildings? PLEASE I REQUEST THAT THE CITY OF DOWNEY REJECT THIS APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN ZONING. Thank'you Meldy Avila P.S. I CAN FORWARD YOU PICTURE OF PEOPLE PARKING IN RED IF IT MAY HELP PROVE MY POINT. 1 A ender Pag PLN.1 7-00145 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION Name of Project: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for 10221 Downey Avenue and 10303 Downey Avenue, Downey CA. 90241 Applications: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Negative Declaration (PLN -17-00145) Location: 10221 Downey Avenue, Downey, A. 90241 (AIN 6252-021-016) 10303 Downey Avenue, Downey, CA. 90241 (AIN 6252-021-017) ZoningiLand use: C -P (Professional Office) — Low Density Residential / R-3 (Multiple - Family Residential) — Low Density Residential Applicant: Jervis and Associates rIMMINETTT-r4m M_ Contact Person: Monica Esparza, Senior Planner (562) 904-7154 mesparza@downeyca.org Review Period, March 29, 2018 —April 18, 2018 The Initial Study and Negative Declaration will be circulated for a 21 -day review period. Wr comments must be received by the City of Downey Planning Division prior to 5:00 p.m. on t last date of the public review period. 1 Future Unlimited CIVIC CENTER LIBRARY POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKS A RECREATION UTILITIES DIVISION MAINTENANCE SERVICES 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVE, 11121 BROOKSHIRE AVE 10911 BROOKSHIRE AVE 7850 QUILL DR_ 9252 STEWART & GRAY RD 12324 BELLFLOWER BLVD. RD BOX 7016 DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA PO BOX 7016 DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241-7016 DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90242 90241-7016 90242 90241-7016 562-904-7360 90241-7016 562-904-7238 562-904-7202 562-904-719-1 562-869-7331 wd.yflb ... y -,g 562-861-0771 Acienda Paae 39 www.downeyca arg Negative Declaration PLN -17-00145 March 29, 2018 Purpose of Review: The purpose of this review is to allow public agencies and interested members of the public the opportunity to share expertise, disclose agency analysis, check for accuracy, detect omissions; discover public concerns, and solicit counter proposals pursuant to CEQA Section 15200 (Purpose of Review). Send Comments to: City of Downey= Planning Division Monica Esparza, Senior Planner 11111 Brookshire Ave Downey, CA 90241 Email — mesparza@downeyca.org Fax — (562) 622-4816 Documents are available for review at: City of Downey City Hall Planning Division 11111 Brookshire Ave Downey, CA 90241 Website e. . w Public Hearing Scheduled: The City of Dow ney's Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider the applications, including the Negative Declaration, a 6:30 p,m. on April 16, 2018, in the CouncilChambers of Downey City Hall, located at 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, CA. All interested parties are invited to attend and give testimony on the request. Monica sp` cF anner Publish Date: March 29, 2018 PROJECT NAME: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for 10221 Downey Avenue and 10303 Downey Avenue, Downey CA. 90241 PROJECT LOCATION: 10221 Downey Avenue, Downey, CA. 90241 10303 Downey Avenue, Downey, CA. 90241 PROJECT APPLICANT: Jervis and Associates 10841 Paramount Boulevard, #203 Downey, CA. 90241 LEAD AGENCY: City of Downey Community Development Department Planning Division 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Contact: Monica Esparza, Senior Planner (562) 904-7154 mesparza@downeyca.org PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: March 29, 2018 — April 18, 2018 This Negative Declaration and Initial Study Checklist have been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq.). Written comments regarding this Negative Declaration shall be made to the Lead Agency, listed above, prior to 5:00 p.m. on the last day of the Public Review Period. SECTION'•D• The Applicant is requesting to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation for 10221 Downey Avenue to Low -Medium Density Residential from Low Density Residential and change the Zoning Designation to R-2 (Two -Family Residential) from C -P (Professional Office). At 10303 Downey Avenue, the Applicant is proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation to Low -Medium Density Residential from Low Density Residential and change the Zoning Designation to R-2 (Two -Family Residential) from R- 3 (Multiple -Family Residential). Although no development is proposed at this time, approval of this request will allow up to 14 units to be built on the project site. The project sites encompass two parcels addressed 10221 Downey Avenue and 10303 Downey Avenue, both located within the City of Downey. 10221 Downey Avenue; is an 18,000 square -foot, rectangular lot located south of Florence Avenue and to the east of Downey Avenue. The parcel has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential ---and- a Zoning Designation—of C=P—(Professional- Office). -The--site—is - developed with a one-story, single-family residence that is approximately 1,700 square feet in size and was built in 1952. 10303 Downey Avenue is located to the south of 10221 Downey Avenue and also has an area of 18,000 square -feet. This parcel has_a General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential and a Zoning Designation of R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential). The site is improved with a one-story, single-family residence that is approximately 1,405 square -feet and was built in 1951. 3. Surrounding Properties: The subject properties are surrounded by multiple -family residential uses to the south that are zoned R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential) and have a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential; a commercial office building to the north that is zoned C -P (Professional Office) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Office and fronts Florence Avenue. To the east, there is a mix of single-family and multiple -family developments. This area is zoned R-1 10,000 (Single -Family Residential) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density Residential. The single- family residential uses directly west of the project sites are zoned R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential) and have a General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential. Downey Avenue is a fully -improved, four -lane street and is predominantly developed with multiple -family residential development to the south of this site. 4. City Characteristics: The City of Downey is 12.8 square mile community that is located in the southeastern part of Los Angeles County. The State of California Department of Finance estimated that City's population is 113,832, as of January 1, 2017. The City of Downey is located about 12 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and is bounded by: the Rio Hondo River on the west; Telegraph Road on the north; the San Gabriel River on the east; and Gardendale Street and Foster Road on the south. Cities bordering Downey include: Pico Rivera on the north and Santa Fe Springs on the northeast, Norwalk on the east, Bellflower and Paramount on the south, South Gate on the southwest and west and Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 2 March 29, 2018 Acienda Pacie 42 Commerce on the northwest. Regional access to and from the City of Downey is provided by the Santa Ana (1-5) Freeway; Glen Anderson Freeway (1-105) Freeway; the San Gabriel River Freeway (I- 605) Freeways; and the Long Beach Freeway (1-710); MTA Green Line Light Rail passenger train services at the Lakewood Boulevard station, and various Metro Bus Lines that connect throughout the City. The City of Downey is a Charter City with most municipal services being provid directly by the City. This includes City Police and Fire services, as well as, Plannin. Building, Housing, Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, Library, and Publ Works. Additionally, the City of Downey oversees operation of the Downey Ci Theater, the • Transit System, and the Farmer's Market. I 5. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 3 March 29, 2018 Agenda Page 43 . LocationMap: F'd�'.-`flu•ni �waeeriy .�. an r:.:g8 d°N Baa ®t awl. Loi Angeles t 5 t t 4 s lits �f��r"1k5kw$ w t } r�N NWtlYf 111 A � NR8A°malf, t 4e E t z}tip{ 1 sltlt4?�li i� t x rsP3k7��ritst��it��t�{ `�s{�� , 'rdiyr�, $3tdPnaa �'� 3 lite {ttti4 tt tj t � iithS�i !F t�ilt�tli � tt a tttt fir{ � t ids � t � t t sets r)a@nVW, Lim ^t i G i s; �t �� t i `tSt f �Fttjjt�tsdt��ttt'} Yjl i } tt t .' 1 � � � i � ,47'• (Q$�'1$A'��{�IS City of +•wney Location in RegionalContext Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 4 March 29, 2018 Project Location Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 5 March 29, 2018 Agenda e 45 Aerial Photograph - Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 6 March 29, 2018 Agenda Page 46 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 7 March 29, 2016 Agenda e 47 Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning bowney Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 8 March 29, 2018 Agenda Page 48 SECTION ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY :: . AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist in section III. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Mineral Resources El Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Population and Housing Cultural Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Geology and Soils ❑ Recreation ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0 TransportationfTraffic ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Hydrology _& Water Quality ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. El I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. l find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. w R Signature:�� Date: March 29, 2018 Moni a, Seniorlanner forth City of Downey Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone,. Page. March 29, 2018 Page SECTION _'� - •; • This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed project. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. They outline the following issues: 1. "Aesthetics 10. Mineral Resources 2. Agriculture Resources 11. Noise 3. Air Quality 12. Population and Housing 4. Biological Resources 13. Public Services 5. Cultural Resources 14. Recreation 6. Geology and Soils 15. Transportation and Traffic 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 16. Utilities and Service Systems 8.- Hydrology and Water Quality 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance g. Land Use and Planning The analysis considers the project's short-term impacts (construction -related), and its operational or day- to-day impacts. For each question, there are four possible responses. They include: 1. No Impact. Future development arising from the project's implementation will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment and no additional analysis is required. 2. Less Than S!' iflcant l pact, The development associated with project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment; these impacts, however, will be less than the levels or thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required 3. P_otentially Significant Impact Unless ��'. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which will have a significant effect on the environment; however, mitigation measures will be effective in reducing the impacts to levels that are less than significant. 4. Potentiattv Stgnifica t Impac . Future implementation will have impacts that are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No reauired Inco orated Im act Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ M b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not F1 0 limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ ❑ ❑ Z of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ❑ ❑ FX1 would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 10 March 29, 2018 Awa Paae 50_; Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No reruired :Incorporated Y Imact Impact (a and b): No impact. The City of Downey, which is located in southeast LosAngeles County, is an urban environment. There are no scenic vistas, scenic resources or scenic highways within the City boundaries or any visible from within the City.1 No impact would occur. (c): No Impact. The request to change the General Plan Designation and Zone of the existing sites will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. If approved, the applicant will have to submit development plans that comply with the development standards of the Downey Municipal Code. The standards adopted within the Municipal Code are intended to regulate development so as to not negatively impact the visual character of the site nor its surroundings. (d): No Impact, The future R-2 development of the site must comply with the development standards within the Downey Municipal Code. Pursuant to D.M.C. Section 9520.06, all outdoor lighting must be directed, positioned, and/or shielded as not to direct light on any street or abutting property. Mitigation Measures: None Needed 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps El l --I n- 19 prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use ora l I I Williamson act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources ❑ l Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland - Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland ❑ ® El to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,- El El 0 due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1 City of Downey, Downey Vision 2025 - Comprehensive General Plan Update Draft EIR, July 2004 p: 8-1 Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 11 March 29, 2018 Agenda age 51 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No required Incorporated Impact �_p Im _� �t (a, b and e): No impact. The City of Downey is an urbanized area that is mostly built out with only infill development potential. There are no agricultural lands within the City's boundaries. The project will have no impact on converting Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. Furthermore, the City's General Plan (Vision 2025) does not include provisions for agricultural uses in the future. While the City does have a variety of zoning districts, agricultural uses are only allowed in the Open Space (O -S) zone, The subject site is neither within or adjacent to the O -S zone. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources would occur with implementation of the proposed project. (c): No Impact. The City of Downey is an urban ized-area-that-is mostly—built out with only infill development potential. There are no forest or timberland lands within the City's boundaries. Therefore the project will not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land,2 timberland,3 or timberland zoned Timberland Production.4 (d): No impact. The City of Downey is an urbanized area that is mostly built -out with only infill development potential. There are no forest lands within the City's boundaries. Therefore, the project will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Mitigation Measures: None Needed 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 0 quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to 0 L1 0 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- 0 D attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 0 concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors? 0 2 As defined in Public Resource Code 12220(8) 3 As defined in Public Resource Code 4526 4 As defined in Government Code Section 51104(g) Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 12 Ac March 29, 2018 ienda PAge 52 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No required Incorporated Impact ._Impact __ (a): No impact; The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is the regional agency responsible for air quality regulations within the SCAB including enforcing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (C QS) and implementing strategies to improve air quality and to mitigate effects from new growth. The SCAQMD, in association with the California Air Resources Board (CAPES) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),_is responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that details how the region intends to attain or maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP includes the integrated strategies and measures needed to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). SCAQMD recently approved on March 3, 2017 the 2016 AQMP that demonstrates -attainment -of the 1-hr_and-&hr ozone, NAAQS as well as the igtest 24 -hr and annual PM2.6 standards. Consistency with the 2016 AQMP is determined when a project: (1) does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation; (2) is consistentwith the growth assumptions in the AQMP; and (3) does not conflict with the implementation of any of the control measures or strategies_. adopted in the AQMP. The_ purpose of the AQMP is to bringan area into compliance with the requirements of Federal and State air quality standards; The consistency review is as follows: 1. The project will result in short-term constructionrelatedpollutant emissions less than the CEQA significance emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as determined in Response No. 3(b) below. Therefore, the project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation and will not cause a new air quality standard violation. 2. The potential residential development could consist of a maximum of 14 units The emission impacts of 14 units are consistent with the projections of the 2016 AQMP, which continues to decrease within Los Angeles County. 3. The pollution control strategies of the 2016 AQMP are mainly concerned with technologically based means of reducing emissions from mobile and stationary sources. Many of the control strategies are plans to develop regulations and rules that will specify future requirements for activities to reduce pollutant emissions. Examples of control strategies include increased industrial PM emissions control through baghouses, wet scrubbers, and other devices, volatile organic compounds (VOC) reductions in lubricants, and the light- and medium -duty vehicle high -emitters identification program to reduce NO,,, and VOC emissions. There are no control strategies that are applicable to the project. Based on this consistency analysis, no impact is anticipated relating to conflicts with the Air Quality Management Plan. (b and c): Less than significant impact. Short-term air quality impacts can be anticipated from construction activities, although the proposed project does not anticipate violating any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. All construction equipment is required to comply with CAB reguations, and construction activity is subject to the SCAQMD regulations, The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in 1966, established the C Q; all areas of the state are required to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practicable date. Regions of the state that have not met one or more of the CAAOS are known as`nonattainment areas, while regions that meet the CAAQS are known as attainment areas. The proposed; project would be located in the Los Angeles County sub -area of the SCAB Los Angeles County is designated as a state nonattainment area for 03, PM2,5, and lead. The SCAQMD publishes thresholds of significancefor the, a pollutants.5 - i Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 13 March 29, 2018 A nda 0. Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No reaulred Jnc®rpqnan;ed_ jTLa Lc� __!mpact Iwo .1 141 r '111W a W oil (d): Less than significant impact. Sensitive receptors include day care centers (adult & child), schools, h*itals, churchO� rehabilitation centers, 401 long4arm care facilities (i.e. assisted living facilities). A review of ��8area-indicato$thAtsensiti�tereceptotsat��withitt�N mile of the -project site.—Nevertheless, the operation of multiple -family dwelling units does not create significant source of pollutants, let alone a pollution concentration. (e): No impact. Projects that involve offensive odors may be a nuisance to a wide number of neighboring uses, including -businesses- residences, -sensitive -receptors and. public -areas—For example, heavy. -industrial -projects, livestock farming operations, and food packaging op�rations involving high concentrations of vinegar or spices can create odors that have long term impacts to the neighbors. The future residential development of this site is a residential use, and will therefore not emit any offensive odors. a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or 13 regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Oepaiftm64 of Fish and Game�& U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service'? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or El regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c� Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (inclUding, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal�� etcJ through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 1NA resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with 6 City of Downey, Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Comprebcnsive General Plan Update Draft EIR. July 2004 p. 4-3 Downey-wenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 14 March 29, 2018 Agenda Page 54 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No required ncorporaled�lmpaact established native resident or migratory wildlife�T rid : IImpact corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ® El l` l biological resources? (i.e. tree preservation ordinance). f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, 0I or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? Response: (a): -No -Impact. According -to -theEnvironmental-impact Report prepared -for the City of Downey; General_Plan7,- there are no species identified_as -a candidate, sensitive,_ or special species in local, regional, state, or federal documents within the City of Downey. Furthermore, the subject sites are fully developed with single-family residential with minimal landscaping, such as grass and broadleaf trees. (b): No Impact. There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Moreover, the three river channels that are located within the boundaries of the City of Downey (Rio Hondo Channel, Los Angeles River, and San Gabriel River) are cement- or riprap-lined and support limited vegetation. These rivers are separated from the project site by miles of residential, industrial, and commercial developments. (c): No Impact. Based on a March 2018 review of the National Wetlands Inventory, there are no protected wetlands in the immediate area of the project site.$ (d): No Impact. The movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or the uses of native wildlife nursery sites have not been identified in the City of Downey.9 Accordingly, the project would not impact the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors. (e): No Impact. The City of Downey does not have any local ordinance to protect biological resources. No impact would occur. (f): No Impact. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan or other habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: None Needed 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 0 El 7 City of Downey, Downey Vision 2025 - Comprehensive General Plan Update FIR Initial Study, March 2004 p. C-18 8 Verified on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services National Wetlands Inventory Map (https://www.fws.gov/wettands/data/mapper.htmi) on March 28, 2018 9 City of Downey, Downey Vision 2025 — Comprehensive General Plan Update Draft EIR Initial Study. March 2004 p. C-19. Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 15 March 29, 2018 enda Paae 55 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No historical —re sou--....�.. d—e - e—d' -- re ulred Incrperate+i Irnaact Impact urce as defined in CEQA Guidelines 5064:857 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of I -I; E 11 an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 5064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ E resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside ❑ of formal cemeteries? Response: (a): No impact. The structures on the site are two residential; ranch styled homes that were built in 1551 and 1952. This type of home is very common throughout Downey, as this was the predominant style of architecture used within this time period. _ Furthermore, there are no known persons or events that have taken place at or around these sites that would make them considerable for historic designation. These sites were reviewed by local Native American tribes and no cultural resources were discovered. As such, these structures are not considered historical. Therefore, no historical resources will be affected. (b): No impact. There are no known archeological resources on it. The project will have no impact on the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Notwithstanding this, should any archeological resources be discovered on the site, the applicant is required to comply with the provisions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 regarding archaeological sites. (c): No impact. There are no known paleontological resources on it. The project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Notwithstanding this, should any be discovered on the site, the applicant is required to comply with the provisions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 regarding paleontological sites. (d): No impact. The project is not expected to disturb any human remains "since all burials in the City have occurred in the Downey Cemetery since the late 1880's".10 Thus, the project will not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Notwithstanding this, should any be discovered on the site, the applicant is required to comply with the provisions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 regarding human remains sites. Mitigation Measures: None Needed 6.- GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:` a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on El the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based 10 City of Downey, Downey Vision 2025 Comprehensive General Plan Update Draft EIR. July 2004 p. 8-2 Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 16 March 29, 2018' Agenda Page -56 Potentially Potentially Less -Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No required Incorporated M Inn act a Im acts on other substantial evidence of a known fault?' 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ 3) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ i 1XA ❑ El ❑ 0 LA 4) Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? i-1 0 ❑ c:- Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ potentially result in-on-or--off-site-landslide,-lateral spreading,----- susidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of 0 f3 the California -Building ,Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of I El 11 septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of water? Response: (a1 through a3 and c): Less than significant impact. The City of Downey is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, as indicated on the zone map issued by the State Geologist for the area, nor is it expected to involve strong seismic ground shaking or seismic -related ground failure. The applicant is not currently proposing development on the project sites. Future construction on the site will not involve significant changes in topography. Nonetheless, the City of Downey is located in an area considered to be seismically active, as is most of Southern California. Major active fault zones are located southwest and northeast of the City, with the Whittier fault being the fault with the greatest potential to impact the project site. It is located approximately 4-5 miles northeast of the project site and is capable of a maximum moment magnitude of 7.2.11 Since the site is not located within the boundaries of an (Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults are known to pass through the property, surface fault rupture within the site is considered unlikely. Impacts are considered to be less than significant since all new construction is already required to comply with the existing seismic standards of the Building Code, which already mitigates any potential significant impact. Liquefaction is phenomenon where earthquake -induced ground vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. The possibility of liquefaction is dependent upon grain size, relative density, confining pressure, saturation of the soils, strength of the ground motion and duration of ground shaking. In order for liquefaction to occur, three criteria must be met: underlying loose, coarse-grained (sandy) soils; a groundwater depth of less than about 50 feet; and a nearby large magnitude earthquake. The susceptibility of soil to liquefy tends to decrease as the density of the soil increases and the intensity of ground shaking decreases. Strong ground shaking will also tend to densify loose to medium dense deposits of partially saturated granular soils and could result in seismic settlement of foundations and the ground surface at the project site. The Building Code requires that the applicant prepare a soils report for all new structures on the site, The soils reports will set design standards to address any potential negative impact from liquefaction. Since this is already a Code requirement, the impact is considered to be less than si�nificank. 11 Southern California Earthquake Data (inter (Iall21lsa ��c41t � c -art �t�itat��tft iitJAIt), March 28, 2018 Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 17 March 29, 2018 Agenda Page -57 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No re uired Incorporated jmpact lT act , ,, (a4): No impact. Topographically, the property is essentially planar, sloping gently at about a one to two percent grade for water runoff. Elevations in the area are approximately 130 feet above sea level. Overall, the City of Downey has a relatively flat topography and the possibility of landslides is typically unlikely. The project site is not within a potential earthquake -induced landslide hazard zone, and due to the low gradient of the site, seismically induced landsliding is nil. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to the risk of landslides during a seismic event. (b): No impact. The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The potential for soil erosion on the project site is low due to the existing planar topography of the project site. Furthermore, the disturbed area for construction is considered to be minimal and all trenched areas will be restored with grass. (d): No impact. Expansive soils are typically composed of certain types of silts and clays that have the capacity to shrink or swell in response to changes in soil moisture content: Shrinking or swelling of foundation soils can lead to damage to foundations and engineered structures including tilting and cracking. The proposed project would comply with current City Code and CBC requirements and would not affect foundations or result in other structural or engineering modifications that could increase exposure of people or structures to risk associated with expansive soils. (e) No impact. The City of Downey is an urban area that is served by a sanitary "sewer systema New septic tanks are prohibited within the City. Mitigation Measures: None Needed 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION. Would the project: a.- Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or 0; El Ll indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Response: (a): Less than significant impact. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change, While no single project of this scale could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature, it is the combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects that contribute substantially to the phenomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental impacts, and as such, is addressed only as a cumulative impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. A common source of GHG for development sites similar is through the production of electricity to power operations of the site. The future new construction will comply with the strict conservation requirements of the California Energy Code, which includes using higher efficiency appliances, windows, and installation. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less than significant. Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 18 March 29, 2018 Agenda Page 5 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No required Incorporated lrn act Im act (b): Less than significant impact, As discussed in response No. 7(a) above, GHG emissions that would occur from the installation and; operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. The City does not have local policies or ordinances with the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the City is subject to compliance with the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006). Mitigation Measures: None Needed 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a. - Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident ❑ ❑ FJ conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 0 hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ❑ ❑- D 0 Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, There such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of n ❑ ❑ a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or ❑ ❑ ❑ working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ ❑' ❑' evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild 0' ❑ ❑ lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 19 March 29 2018 Agenda Page 59 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No required Incor orated; lm act lm act TT (a through c): No impact. The request involves the potential for future residential development. This potential residential development would not involve the use, handling, or storage of any potentially hazardous materials, nor would it involve excavation that could potentially disturb contaminated soils or groundwater. As such, the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, the project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (d): No impact. The project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section:6596 5.12 (e and f): No impact. The City of Downey is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing ------=or-working-in-the, project_area.—. __ (g): No Impact. The site is not a defined staging/evacuation area on any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Furthermore, construction of the project will not impede street access, thus it will not create a hazard to emergency response in the area. (h): No impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is not contiguous to a designated high fire area associated with any designated wildland area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with wildland fires. Mitigation Measures: None Needed 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 0 ❑ i requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream 11 1 or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 12 Checked on of rxic Substance Controlwebsite Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 20 March 29, 20 MeridaPaiat1 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No .required Incorporated Impact pact d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e,- "Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the-� capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ g Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as 11-i mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ® ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation byseiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 ❑ ❑ Response: (a through f): No impact.- The agency with jurisdiction over water quality within the project area is the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). The Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In accordance with the CWA, the construction is required to comply with the NPDES, and as such, would not cause any violations associated with water quality standards or water discharge requirements. (g through h): No impact. Pursuant to Flood Insurance Rate Map, Flood Zone Map No. 06037C1 810F, effective on September 26, 2008, the project site is within Flood Zone X, which is not a 100 year flood zone. Due to the nature of the proposed project, it would not impede or redirect flood flows within the area and does not include a housing component. (i): No impact. The subject site is located between the Rio Hondo Channel/ Los Angeles river and the San Gabriel river. According to the Vision 2025 FEIR, these flood control channels has been designed to meet or exceed the discharge capacity for a 100 -year flood. 13 Due to the distance between the project site and the levees constructed for these rivers, there is no possibility for there to be an impact. 0): No impact. The City of Downey is relatively flat and is not located near a dam, lake, or ocean, and therefore, inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is not anticipated. Moreover, tsunamis and seiches do not pose hazards due to the inland location of the site and lack of nearby bodies of standing water. 13 City of Downey, Downey Vision 2025 — Comprehensive General Plan Update Draft EtR. July 2004 p. 5-58 Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 21 March 29, 2018 ende Page 61 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Than | E|R Unless Signifioa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No None Needed 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING.Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation ofanagency with jurisdiction over the project r] [] [] 0 (ino|uding.but not limited bothe general plan, specific plan, =�local- coastal pnugrom.orzoning ondhlon purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or O O [7 12 natural community conservation plan? (a): No impact. The potential development of this request would not divide onestablished community. There is on existing mix ofsingle-family and multiple -family residential maem in the surrounding area and would therefore contribute bothe character ofthe neighborhood. (b): No impact. The project request is to amend the current General Plan designation in order to achieve multiple -family residential development. Currently, 1U303Downey Avenue has ozoning designation ofR'3and 10231 Downey Avenue has a zoning designation ofC'P. Both of these parcels have a General Plan Land Use Designation ofLow Density Residential. Based on the surrounding uses and the zoning designations, these amendments and zone changes are consistent with Policy 1.3.i ofthe General Plan wherein itstates "minimize or eliminate conflicts where incompatible land uses are in proximity to each other." This request will eliminate the inconsistency of single-family uses directly adjacent to multiple -family residential and commercial developments. (c): No impact. There is no applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Thmnafono, the project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, emthere are noapplicable conservation plans. Mitigation Measures: �T1r__1X=@ 11' MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result imthe loss ofavailability ofa known mineral resource that would beofvalue bnthe region and the residents ofthe - -- b. Result Reaubk/the loss ofmv�availability akocal�mpmumxx��r� D] Elr] �� resource recovery a�edelineated onm�oa|general plan, ~~ - specific plan orother |andueop|an? Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 22 March 29, 2018 Agenda P3ge 62 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No required Incorporated Im act Impact �.�, Response: (a and b): No impact. The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. There are no known mineral resources on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect access to or the availability of valued mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: None Needed 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in 0 0 excess., ofstandards_ established in the- local _general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 0 ® ® 0 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in El ® CA ID the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient n D 23 noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of El 1_1 a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the El1 project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Response: (a, b, and d): Less than significant. During construction of a future project, it is anticipated that there will be a temporary increase in noise levels and vibration. However, construction hours are limited to the times as set forth in the Downey Municipal Code and will comply with all regulations for construction asset forth within the California Building Code. (c): Less than significant. These sites are currently improved with two (2) single-family dwelling units. As such, an potential increase in the number of units on the lot will increase ambient noise. However, the noises associated with these potential residential uses will be consistent and less than with the amount of noise issued from the existing R-3 developments in the vicinity. e and f): No im dict. The ro'ect site is not locatedyithin an airport land use Ilan, within two milesof Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 23 March 29, 2019 Agenda Page 63 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No required Incorporated Impact Impacts, airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there is no impact in this regard. Mitigation Measures: None 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and F-1 i. h S businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, IEl I necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 0 0 CJ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Response: (a): No impact. The changes in land use designation and zoning will allow residential development where there are currently single-family residential uses. The potential development would accommodate 14 units, 12 units more than what exists. At an average of 3.55 persons per unit, the additional_ twelve (12) units will add approximately 42.6 people. Out of the City's population of over 113,000 people, there will be minimal population growth due to this project. (b): No impact. The two existing units will be replaces with 14 units, therefore increasing the availability of housing in this area. (c): No impact. The proposed project would not displace people, as the existing units are currently vacant. Mitigation Measures: None Needed 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? 0 D 0 0 2) Police protection? it i ml'' Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 24 March 29, 2018 Agenda Page 64 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact- EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No required Incorporated Impact Impact 3) Schools? a 0 ® 0 4) Parks? 1 F ® F 5) Other public facilities? P, 11 ® lz (a.1 through a.5): No impact. The City of Downey is an urban full service community, providing its own police service, fire protection, library system, and park and recreation services. The Downey Unified School District provides all public education in the area. These services will not be impacted by construction and operation of --the-project. This -project -will -not -induce -growth -and -will only-create-minimal-new-jobs-in-the-area.-As-such,—no- additional services will be required with the approval of this project. Mitigation Measures: None Needed 15. RECREATION. a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that hi' l substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the t construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (a): No impact. The future residential development associated with the proposed land use designations will only add twelve (12) units to the area. Depending on the future plans, the amount of people living in this new development will not have a significant impact on the existing recreational facilities that exist within the City. Furthermore, the City of Downey will collect Park in lieu fees, which covers the cost of impacts from new residential developments. (b): No impact. The project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: None Needed 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system ® D (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 25 March 29, 2018 �1 e Q 5' Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No q_ Inc , orpoImpact Ict_ rated ..M.._�.__....,a�� mpa congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service 0 N 0 standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an El 0 El 0 increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g,, farm equipment)? ,. e. Result in inadequate emergency access? El ❑ f. Result_ n inadequate -parking capacity? L1 El g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 0 alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Response: (a and b): No impact. The proposed land use changes could result in future residential development. Downey Avenue is a fully -serviced, four -lane street that has a significant amount of multiple -family residential developments at a higher density than the projected future development. Additionally, any future residential development must comply with the minimum parking requirements of two -cars per unit. As such, despite an uptick in the amount of traffic travelling along Downey Avenue, it is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the area. (c): No impact. The project will not alter existing air traffic patterns or create additional air traffic. (d): No impact. The future development associated with these land use changes will not create hazards or incompatible uses. (e): No impact. All future development must comply with the California Fire Code and will therefore, have adequate emergency access. (f): No impact. All future development of this site must comply with the minimum parking requirements for R-2 development as listed within the Downey Municipal Code. Therefore, inadequate parking will not be an issue. (g): No impact. The changes in land use associated with these sites will not conflict with the City of Downey's- Master Bike Plan. The 2015 Bike Master Plan indicates that Downey Avenue is to have a Class II bike lane with a road diet. As this has already been in effect, the future development of these sites will not impact this. Mitigation Measures: None Needed Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 26 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis is Mitigation nt No required __ Incor orated Impact Impact 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 0 El Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing _ El 1-1' ` facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. _ Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the [D C l construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 0 El 0 from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has 0 ® 0 M' adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ® 0 0 0 accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ® 0 0` regulations related to solid waste? Response: (a, b and e): No impact. Since the project has the potential for a future fourteen (14) unit development, generation of -wastewater -will increase. However, the existing sewer system is in place and has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional surcharge. (c): No impact. The project sites are fully serviced and constructed for Low Impact Development. The retention of this stormwater system will not cause significant environmental effects. (d): No impact. The proposed changes in land use will not impact the water supplies at the project sites. The Department of Public Works of the City of Downey has confirmed that the potential residential development of these sites has sufficient water supplies available to serve the potential construction. (f and g): No impact. Solid waste disposal services are provided to the City of Downey by CalMet Services Inc. Solid waste collected in the City is taken to the Downey Area Recycling and Transfer Facility (DART), where recyclables are separated from the waste stream and the remainder is sent to landfills. All disposal of solid waste at this site will comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations. Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 27 March 29, 2018 Agenda Pee 67 Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than Impact - EIR Unless Significa Analysis Is Mitigation nt No required Ineor orated ImpactIm act Mitigation Measures: None 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or iii' _ _animal cpmrnnity,_reduce the number or restrict the range_ of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0; b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are 0 11 0 0_ considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will E3 ® F 0 cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Response: (a): No impact. As described throughout the preceding checklist sections, the proposedproject will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. (b): No impact. Based on the analysis contained within this Initial Study, the proposed project is not anticipated to create impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. (c): No impact. Based on the analysis contained within this Initial Study, the proposed project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation Measures: None Needed Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 28 March 29, 2018 Agenda Edge 68 Air Quality Management Plan Carbon Dioxide Carbon Monoxide SECTIOV \ AQMP CO2 CO Best Management Practices BMP California Air Resources Board CARB California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAAQS California Building Code CBC California Department of Transportation CALTRANS California Environmental Quality Act CEQA City of Downey General Plan VISION 2025 Clean Water Act CWA Conditional Use Permit CUP Congestion Management Plan CMP Environmental Impact Report EIR Federal Highway Administration FHWA Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR Fine Particulate Matter PM2,5 Global Warming Solutions Act AB 32 Greenhouse gases GHGs Household Hazardous Wastes HHW Housing and Community Development HCD Inhalable Particulate Matter PM10 Light Emitting Diode LED Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority METRO Los Angles Regional Water Quality Control Board LARWQCB Methane CH4 Metropolitan Water District MWD National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPDES Nitrous Oxide N20 Ozone 03 Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB South Coast Air Basin SCAB South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD Southern California Association of Governments SCAG Sulfur Dioxide S02 Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 29 March 29, 2018 Agenda Page 69 2. LIST OF PREPARERS City of Downey- Community Development Department 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Monica Esparza, Senior Planner - (562) 904-7154 3. BIBLIOGRAPHY The following documents have been references in preparing this initial study and are incorporated by reference. Copies of the documents are available for review with the project file. California Building Code, as adopted by City of Downey City of Downey Bike MasterPlan, July 2015 City of Downey. Downey Vision 2025 General Plan City of Downey. Downey Vision 2025 General Plan EIR. City of Downey Zoning Code South Coast Air Quality Management District. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March 2011 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 403 Fugitive Dust. June 2005 Downey Avenue General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Page 30 March 29, 2018 Agenda Page 70 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTED Y: ALDO E. SCHINDLER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEWED BY: DAVID BLUMENTHAL, CITY PLANNED PREPARED BY MONICA ESPARZA, SENIOR PLA NE SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R COE DING DENIAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND ZONE CHANGE (PLN -17-00145) LOCATION::: -10221 DOWNEY_AVENUE &_10303.DOWNEY AVENUE ZONING: C -P (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) & R-3 (MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on a proposed Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change. After accepting all written and oral testimony, the Planning commission voted 2-1, to deny the request. As such, staff has prepared the following titled resolution: r• r • r • r r r • • • r On May 2, 2016, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing of the aforementioned project. During public comment, six (6) residents spoke in opposition of the request and one (1) resident spoke in favor of it. As a part of the deliberation, Chairman Owens recused himself due to a perceived conflict of interest. Commissioners Flores and Dominguez expressed concerns regarding high density in the area, parking impacts on La Reina Avenue and that they could not make the finding for General Plan consistency, nor did they feel the zone change was necessary or appropriate at this time. Commissioner Duarte stated that he was supportive of the request and felt that it was consistent with the development in the area and to the east of the site, along Lexington Avenue. At the conclusion of the hearing and following deliberations, Planning Commissioner Flores made a motion to recommend denial of Attachment "" the request to City Council- Vice Chairman Dominguez seconded the motion. The motion resulted in a 2-1 vote due to concerns regarding density and inconsistency of the project request from Commissioners Flores and Dominguez. Since the Planning Commission could not make all of the findings in a positive manner, the project shall be denied. Below are the findings that the Planning Commission could not make in a positive manner: FINDINGS General Plan Amendment 1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with all other goals, policies, programs, and land uses of applicable elements of the General Plan. The proposed amendment is not consistent with all other goals, policies, programs, and land uses. The designation of these properties was deemed Low DensityResidential'` in 2005; as were the single-family residential properties located to the west of the subject sites. The intention of this designation was to support the low -scale, low intensity uses that currently act as a buffer from the commercial uses along Florence Avenue -and -the high density uses along Downey Avenue and La Reina Avenue. Changing the designation of the subject sites would go against General Plan Program 1.4.2.1, which discourages residential construction not in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. That the zone change is necessary and desirable for the development of the community in harmony with the objectives of the General Plan and this chapter and is in the interest or furtherance of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed zone change is not necessary for the development of the community and does not further the public health, safety, and general welfare. The property owner of the subject sites is able to continue to develop the site in consistency with the General Plan's Low Density Designation. Changing the zoning of these properties to the proposed R-2 zone would create higher density in this area, leading to adverse impacts on parking and traffic. A. Planning Commission Resolution 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue — PLN -17-00145 June 6, 2018 - Page 2 r• r- • s • :r r • • • r r r r • 0 r 11,179.1r THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and declare that, A. On August 21, 2017, the applicant submitted a request for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of 10221 Downey Avenue from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change to change the zone from C -P (Professional Office) to R-2 (Two -Family Residential); and change the land use designation of10303Downey Avenue from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential,. and change the zone from R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential) to R-2 (Two -Family Residential); and, B. On February 27, 2018 staff deemed the application complete; and; C: In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, a notice of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration was posted at the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office on March 27, 2018; and, D. On March 29, 2018, notice of the pending application published in the Downey Patriot and mailed to all property owners within 500' of the subject site; and, E. On April 18, 2018, the item was continued, at the Applicant's request, without public testimony; and, F. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 2, 2018, and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing voted 2-1 to recommend denial of the request; and, G. On June 6, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted this resolution. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission further finds determines and declares the environmental impact of the proposed project has been reviewed and has been found to be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(4) wherein it states that a project is exempt from CEQA review when the project will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency. SECTION.31 Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings regarding the General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that: Resolution No. 18 - Downey Planning Commission A. The proposed amendment is not consistent with all other goals, policies, programs, and land uses. The designation of these properties was deemed Low Density Residential in 2005, as were the single-family residential properties located to the west of the subject sites. The intention of this designation was to support the low -scale, low intensity uses that currently act as a buffer from the commercial uses along Florence Avenue and the high density uses along Downey Avenue and La Reina Avenue. Changing the designation of the subject sites would go against General Plan Program 1.4.2.1, which discourages residential construction not in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 4.- Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings regarding the Zone Change, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed zone change is not necessary for the development of the community and does not further the public health, safety, and general welfare. The property owner of the subject sites is able to continue to develop the site in consistency with the General Plan's Low Density Designation. Changing the zoning of these properties to the proposed R-2 zone would create higher density in this area, leading to adverse impacts on parking and traffic. SECTION S. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 through 4 of this resolution, the PlanningCommission of the City of Downey hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Downey deny the request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation at 10221 Downey Avenue from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and denythe request to rezone the same property from C -P (Professional Office) to R-2 (Two -Family Residential); and deny the request to amend the General Plan land use designation at 10303 Downey Avenue from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential and deny the request to rezone the same property from R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential) to R-2 (Two -Family Residential). SECTION 84 The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. [Signatures on next page] 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue— PLN -17-00145 June 6, 2018 - Page 2 Resolution Ro. 18 - Steven Dominguez, Vice Chairmar City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of June, 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Mary Cavanagh, Secretary City Planning Commission 10221 & 10303 Downey Avenue— PLN -17-00145 June 6, 2018 - Page 3 Gustavo Camacho 10225 La Reina Ave Downey, Ca 90241 Cguscl@gmail.com May 2"a, 2018 City of Downey Planning Commission 11111 Brookshire Ave Downey, Ca 90241 Dear Planning Commission, RECEIVED MAY 0 , 2018 ,. I've been a resident and homeowner of the City of Downey since 1997. During this:time, I've - seen many changes in this city. Although I have not opposed the commercialization of some areas of Downey to maintain its economic viability, I vehemently oppose the proposed zoning changes to the project locations of 10221 and 10303 Downey Ave. One of the reasons I first moved to Downey was because of its small-town feel. Now l feel like I'm living in a large, congested city. Three years ago, I purchased my most recent home on La Reina south of Florence Ave. I didn't realize just how dense this area was until I saw it firsthand. For starters, parking is premium. By 3p.m. just about every parking space is taken on the street. By the evening, residents are parking on street corners, making driving a little hazardous because of poor visibility. Another issue we encounter is privacy. I don't blame my fellow neighbors for wanting to sell their homes because of lack of privacy. Now would you feel if you built a swimming pool or spa and suddenly you had to contend with your neighbors staring down at you from a townhome or apartment window? Just the mere fact of someone peering at my family from the apartments to my west has caused me to be reluctant in adding a pool. What I'm asking for and many of my neighbors are asking for, isto'please deny the proposed changes to zoning and future development of up to 14 units on this site. It shouldn't be big money that influences the planning Commission, but the homeowner who has invested their hard earned money to maintain, improve their property and genuinely care about their community. Sincerely, Gustavo Camacho Homeowner Attachment `c" From: Donna Carkeek <donna.carkeek@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:44 AM To: Monica Esparza Subject: Projects at 10221 and 10303 Downey Ave Dear Ms. Esparza, I received the 'notice of public hearing' related to the projects listed above which noted that"all interested parties are invited to submit written comments and/or to attend and give testimony." It was unclear how or to whom to send written comments so I am sending mine to you with the hope that you can get them to the appropriate person/place. I am opposed to the development of "up to 14 units" on these two single family lots. I live just down the street at10361Downey Ave and, while our condo complex - Charmac Manor - has atwo car garage for each unit, there is a huge parking issue all along this area of Downey Ave (and worse on La Reina one block west) due to existing multi family units - both condos and rental units. The traffic`on Downey Ave has increased, perhaps with the construction of the new complexes on 2nd and 3rd as well as the huge complex on Paramount. We have had an increase in street racing late at night and, while there is a red curb on the Downey Ave side of our complex, (but none on the La Reina side) there are _- frequently cars Spectrum van -(parked overi htby a resident of the rentals to the north of our complex) which park in the red zone making it very difficult to safely move from our driveway into oncoming traffic in the - street. I never seethe red zone violations ticketed. I also frequently walk around the neighborhood and, on La Reina in particular, cars park up to the stops and on the corner blocking the sidewalks for crossing. Cars on 7th and on New street behind the church park on the garage apron blocking the sidewalk/public access. The addition of 14 units on those lots will only add to the parking and traffic congestion - the Downey and Florence intersection does not have a left turn light which makes turning left hazardous and people going east on Florence frequently turn right on red onto Downey without stopping - I've had several close calls crossing Florence at the light because people fly down the street and turn right on red not seeing me in the crosswalk blocked by cars in the other lanes. Crossing Florence and Paramount l have nearly been hit several times by rolling 'stops' who are texting or on their phones and dodged cars making u -turns at the signed 'no u -turn' light. There are no traffic enforcement resources around. Based on my observations and experiences l think Downey needs to add more traffic and parkingenforcement just to address the current issues. The signs on La Reina behind OLPH school say "20 minute parking 7-9 & 2- 4" -this is never enforced and either it should be or the signs should be removed. With the addition of all the new housing in Downey I hope that the city reviews and adjusts the police and fire resources to an appropriate level. 1 also think that there should be (enforced) red zones on every driveway exiting from`a muti-unit complex. In addition to traffic and parking I have concerns about adding additional burden to the existing water and sewer resources/infrastructure. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Best regards Donna Carkeek 10361 Downey Ave Downey CA 11 From: Meldy Avila <nursemeldy@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 20189:21 PM To: Monica Esparza Subject: OPPOSE General Plan Amendment and Zone Chane 10221& 10303 Downey Ave Hello Ms. Esparza, I am a Downey resident for the past 9 years and I live on Downey Avenue, in very close proximity to the land that is currently being considered for change of zoning: 10221 & 10303 Downey Ave. As a Downey resident and owner of property on Downey Avenue, I definitely oppose this request for zone change. Throughout the years living here in Downey, I have seen so much change, some good, some not so good. Downey is becoming a VERY crowded city, the desirability of living here is declining by many people I speak to. I live next to Our Lady of Perptual Help School. In very recent years, the overcrowding is affecting parking. It is VERY Difficult to find parking out in the street for property owners and much less visitors or guests. Time and time again we see cars parked on restricted red zones (they never get ticketed but that's another issue). Parking on red blocks the drive -ways for, people in their condominium complexes to get in & out of the property, putting everyone at risk for accidents, especially since it's such a busy street now. It has definitely become a safety hazard for everyone, even for children who attend these nearby private schools, Additionally, more littering has been noted as more and more people are being packed into already established apartments. Take a look for example at La Reina & Western Avenue, those streets are even WORSE, OVER CROWD 111, 1ave_a-friend who has_to parr 2 blocks away from her house because there is no parking. Those streets are always lined with trash, beer/alcohol bottles. When we drive through those streets there are always people who are parallel parking, it is VERY CROWDED & UNSAFE. I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT DEVELOPING 14 UNITS on THIS LOT that currently only occupies two single story homes WILL ADD PROBLEMS TO OVERCROWDING AND PARKING ISSUES AND MAKE DOWNEY AVENUE JUST AS BAD AS THE OTHER STREETS I HAVE MENTIONED. THESE DEVELOPERS/REALTORSS& I KNOW THE CITY IS FOCUSED ON MAKING MORE MONEY/REVENUE but PLEASE consider the residents and owners who live here and who have taken pride in their community. Unfortunately we are the ones who will have to bear the burden of overcrowding and other problems (WATER/SEWER/TRASH/ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES) if this gets approved. I used to love Downey, when it was a quieter city, now I'm having second thoughts due to HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF NEW RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE CONDO UNITS ARE BEING ERECTED EVERYWHERE, INCLUDING THE ONES ON PARAMOUNT &NEXT TO BACK OF AMERICA (ON LA REINA). Can't we just leave some open space to breath?? Create more parks instead of buildings? PLEASE I REQUEST THAT THE CITY OF DOWNEY REJECT THIS APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN ZONING. Thank you Meldy Avila P.S. I CAN FORWARD YOU PICTURE OF PEOPLE PARKING IN RED IF IT MAY HELP PROVE MY POINT.. Monica Esparza From: Donna Carkeek <donna.carkeek@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:44 AM To: Monica Esparza Subject: Projects at 10221 and 10303 Downey Ave Dear Ms. Esparza, I received the 'notice of public hearing' related to the projects listed above which noted that "all interested parties are invited to submit written comments and/or to attend and give testimony." It was unclear how or to whom to send written comments so I am sending mine to you with the hope that you can get them to the appropriate person/place. I am opposed to the development of "up to 14 units" on these two single family lots. l live just down the street at 10361 Downey Ave and, while our condo complex - Charmac Manor has atwo car garage for each unit, there is a huge parking issue all along this area of Downey Ave (and worse on La Reina one block west) due to existing multi family units - both condos and rental units. The traffic on Downey Ave has increased,perhaps with the construction of the new complexes on 2nd and 3rd as well as the huge complex on Paramount. We have had an increase in street racing late at night and, while there is a red curb on the Downey Ave side of our complex, (but none on the La Reim side) there are -- - frequently cars and a Spectrum van (parked overnight by a resident of the rentals to the north of our complex)-- _ which park in the red zone making it very difficult to safely move from our driveway into oncoming traffic in the street. I never see the red zone violations ticketed, I also frequently walk around the neighborhood and, on La Reina in particular, cars park up to the stops and on the corner blocking the sidewalks for crossing. Cars on 7th and on New street behind the church park on the garage apron blocking the sidewalk/public access. The addition of 14 units on those lots will only add to the parking and traffic congestion -the Downey and Florence intersection does not have a left turn light which makes turning left hazardous and people going east on Florence frequently turn right on red onto Downey without stopping - I've had several close calls crossing Florence at the light because people fly down the street and turn right on red not seeing me in the crosswalk blocked by cars in the other lanes. Crossing Florence and Paramount l have nearly been hit several times by rolling 'stops' who are texting or on their phones and dodged cars making u -turns at the signed 'no u -turn' light. There are no traffic enforcement resources around. Based on my observations and experiences 1 think Downey needs to add more traffic and parking enforcement just to address the current issues. The signs on La Reina behind CULPH school say "20 minute parking 7-9 & 2- 4" -this is never enforced and either it should be or the signs should be removed. With the addition of all the new housing in Downey I hope that the city reviews and adjusts the police and fire resources to an appropriate level. I also think that there should be (enforced) red zones on every driveway exiting from`a muti-unit complex. In addition to traffic and parking l have concerns about adding additional burden to the existing water and sewer resources/infrastructure. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Best regards Donna Carkeek 10361 Downey Ave Downey CA Erom rhe desk Of george Donna Bnose TO: Planning Commission City of Downey Re: Project at 10221 and 10303 Downey Avenue A previous declined request for amendments to land usage designations allowing construction of 14 units has reappeared. The fine print may be 00N"r7b%--th"utC*(Tu0Js7ba J " I nd i Fao"- OR- 2M t---" , 111- 1-111- 1 Wapy 0 Wwdt;;��ie - 1* St c housing units. A recent article in the Downey Patriot vividly pointed out the problems associated with continued construction of multiple housing complexes in our city. Also, the concerns we raised'before remain the same. Flooding an area with more vehicles scrambling for a place to park when the already limited parking has reached an overly saturated level is completely contrary to the public welfare. Even if two spaces are provided for each new unit, reality tells us that families frequently use the space for storage instead of parking. Plu they often have multiple cars, visitors, and relatives. We invite you to visit the neighborhood at various times during the da and you will witness cars double parked, intruding onto driveways and curb - painted red, in front of fire hydrants, etc. In addition, we now understand th church at the corner of Downey Ave. and Florence will be opening a school 1 i.EM= We urge a negative finding. Sincerely, Ann't, Jug"', C"a' George E Donna Boose RECEIVED 10330 Downey Ave., Unit 10 2b" PLANNING Monica Esparza From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) <Daniel.Jimenez@jpl.nasa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 10:11 AM To: Monica Esparza Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue 1=11� Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel .Jimenez@JP1.nasa.ov Off. (818)393-5943 Cel. (562)760-1791 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS Docmffi= HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND Dors NOT CONTAIN EXPORT-COntzolled ItawXCAL DATA. From*. Monica Esparza [mailto:mesparza@downeyca.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 9:54 AM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Daniel, The project has to go through CIEQA review, so it will be going to the Planning Commission on April 4'h. you will receive notice when itis time. Thank you, 2�= � From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [mailto:Daniel.Jimenez@jpl.nasa.gov] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 10:07 AM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Thank you for the information. I believe I'll end up applying for a general plan amendment, since it seems everything with the city is on a case by case bases. Low Density housing is definitely not what the now owners of the Downey Ave will be developing, if approved, so I don't understand the double standard with our properties. In any case, is the city planning meeting still scheduled for March 7th; because I've yet to receive any information for the city nor have my neighbors. Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez X22 Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel.Jimenez@)pl nasa.gov Off. (818)393-5943 Cel, (562)760 -1791 - CO (818) 393--5800 FAX (818)393-0612 From: Monica Esparza [rn ilto: esparza�downeyca'or I Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:24 A . Jimenez, Daniel -(9200= iiiate) Subject: E; 10221 Downey Avenue Daniel, R3 development re • the approval of _ Plan • e e order fi, e Planning Commission to approve a Site Plan Review, there are findings that need to be made. These findings are as follows: (a) That the site plan is consistent with the goals and polices embodied in the General Plan and other applicable plans and policies adopted by the Council; (b) That the proposed development is in accordance with the purposes and objectives of this article and the zone in which the site is located; (c) That the proposed development's site plan and its design features, including architecture and landscaping, will integrate harmoniously and enhance the character and design of the site, the immediate neighborhood, and the surrounding areas of the City; (d) That the site plan and location of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicate that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effects of the development from the view of the public streets; - - proposed d -•. - , • the community appearanceby preventing eof dissimilarity or monotony in new construction or in alterations of facilities; (f) That the site plan and design considerations shall tend to upgrade property in the immediate neighborhood and surrounding areas with an accompanying betterment of conditions affecting the public health, safety, comfort, and welfare; and 2 (u) That the proposed development's site plan and its design features will include ocu[fiti-resistant features and materials ivaccordance with the requirements of Section 4960ofChapter lOof Article IV of this Code. Specifically, Finding (a) calls for consistency With the Ged&bl Plan. R3 development on your site is not dbrisistent Wiffi the General Plan Land Use Designation �6f Low Density R6sidential. You would have to apply for a General Plan Amendment to develop to R3. Ideally, you would apply for a zone change to change the zoning of your property to R-1. The property owner for the lots behind you are undergoing a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change request to request multiple-famiiy housing, That's how the City is considering the request, Senior Planner 0 City-.1'Downey 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA9O241 Office: (56Z)904-7154 Email: mesparza&owneyca.org From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) LM_PM�toQanie1,Y1me�nez 'p�1.np5p_g_0_V] Sent- Wednesday, February 21, 2018 5:21 AM Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue (Good morning Monica, I'm a bit confused as to how the "General Plan" is being applied; maybe you can help me out here. |f|understood you correctly; even though I'm zoned for an R-3 (and purchased my property because of this) I cannot exercise itbecause the Downey General Plan iscalling for low density? |fthat's the case, why is the City/Planning even considering building the apartments/condos behind my property? Shouldn't the General plan be an all for one plan and be the same for everyone? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JeL/o8N-oGOC COMMoff, (818)393-5943 (818)393-5800 Cel. (563)760-179I FAX (818)393-0612 From: Monica Esparza [Maft01im0SWrZa*dgLwa_eMt0_W1 Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 22:42 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue 91 I apologize for getting back to you so late. In order for you to use your property as an R3 use, you would have to apply for a General Plan Amendment since the Land Use designation for your site is Low Density Residential. The Code states that if an R3 property is used for single-family, it must follow the R-1 5,000 development standards. As such, these standards do notallowfor a second unit. Additionally, the maximum height fora detached accessory structure, i.e. a garage, is 12 -feet. So you wouldn't be allowed to build on top of your garage. I hope this helps. Thank you, Monica Esparza From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [Daniel.Jimenez@jpl.nasa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 1:40 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue KindRegards-P Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC D ni el . Jirienez@ 7 0l .`naSa . v Off. (818}393-5943 Cel (562)760-1791 CO (818)-393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DocumNT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TEcHNxc A.L DATA.. From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 5:30 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue I wanted to look into the option of building another unit on my lot since it's an R=3. Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel.Jimenez@lpl .nasa.gov Off. (818)393-5943 Cel. (562)760-1791 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT-Controlled -TEcHNicAL DATA: - From: Monica Esparza [mailto: esparza downeyCa.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 5:28 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue 4 It's going to be going to the Planning Commission. No, in building permits, depending on the project, only a property owner or licensed contractor can pull the permit. What type of development are you inquiring about? 2�= � From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [Ma—il-to,,Danietlimenez@pl.nasa.g v Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 5:25 PM To: Monica Esparza —Cc:-Jimenez,-Daniel-(9ZOO-Affiliate)- Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Monica, if On a different topic; do you know i we can submit a building permit as a group? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel.Jimenez_�.n�asa.gov Off. (818)393-5943 Cel. (562)760-1791 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DoCMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TEcmicAL DATA. From: Monica Esparza [maft mesparza(chdowngyca,m] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 5:13 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Daniel, This has been schedule for the March 7th hearing. Notices will go out 2 weeks prior. Monica Esparza Senior Planner City-, f Downey P 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562) 904-7154 C"I From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [-M-AlLlt—o--,—D—an—i—el—.Y—I—m—e—n—e—zL&J �Jnaa. v] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 3:38 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Happy new year. Would you be able to provide me the current status of this application, Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III -----Network- Commpnications- Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel. Jimf--nez@JTDl nasa qoy __ Off. (818)393-5943 --Cel. (562)760-1791 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THxs Docuiv= HAs BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TEcaNxc:AL DATA. From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 7:55 AM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue I'll see you at the hearings (ZD. Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel.Jimenez@jpl.nasLa� qov Off. (818)393-5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN P--vxfflfED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TECHNICAL DATA. From: Monica Esparza rmaijt—o;mesgarta @downeyca.-OrgI Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 5:04 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Daniel, 0 You would not have received any notifications regarding the application because we are still going through the environmental process. As for answering your other questions, the Planning Commission is the body that would be able to answer those questions. Staff makes a recommendation to them and they have the final say. We will be making a recommendation of approval, however, the findings of fact to support that recommendation have not been finalized, therefore I cannot specifically answer those questions at this time. You will receive a notice in the mail regarding the public hearing when it gets schedule with the Planning Commission. Thank you for your understanding, Monica Esparza From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) rmailto°Daniel.,7imenez@'pl.r-asa. oy] To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue l Hope all is well; can you answer my questions below and provide me the current Status of the application? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel.Jimenez@ 1.r: asawaov off. (818)393-5943 CO (818)393-5800 Cel. (562)760-1791 FAX (818)393-0612 From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Sent: Thursday, September 28,_2017 12:26 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Thank you for the reply, I have a few final questions as I believe that our last resort will be to wait until the hearings. Here are my questions, I'm just curious to understand the city planning side of things,* p You as City Planning don't consider the area where the proposed development is, to be already densely populated toadd another 12units? - • What isthe added benefit other that the developer making money? • How does this help the city ofDowney? • Can you let me know from your point of view what we gain as a community by allowing this development? Kind Regards/ Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JpL/oSN-DGDC a off. (818)393-5943 COMM (8I8)393-5800 Cel. (562)760-179I FAX (8I8)393 -O612 From: Monica -Esparza Sent: Thursday, September 28/2Ol7lI:2UAM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200-Ajf|iaba) Subject: RE: 1U221Downey Avenue I apologize for the delay is responding to your questions� See, my responses beloll "w What changed orbetter yet; what isthe perceived benefit tochanging the rezoning and ' adding these units that the city council and planning commission are considering it? They are proposing an R2 development which would limit the height to 2 -stories and reduce the number of units than an R3 would allow. ^N Has the owner consider just developing 4 units? As in a duplex on each property? Once the parcels are rezoned, they are going to merge the two lots to make it one development site. I do not know if the owner has considered this. They are looking at building 12 units at the moment. However, development of the site will not come until much later. • Does the planning commission consider the loss of privacy and valid issue; since the current houses are only one story and the planned units will be two or three with clear visibility to our back yards and property lots? The proposed units can only be a maximum of 2 -stories. Privacy is an issue you are welcome to bring up during the public hearing. • How high can they build these units ifapproved? Two -stories or3D-feet,whichever isless. The 3O-feetis measured from the top ofthe nearest curb tothe highest point ofthe roof, • What's the height limitation of the backside wall dividing the properties? The maximum height of walls and fences along the rear and side property lines of residential properties is 7 -feet, measured from the highest finished grade. • What would the property owners on La Reina have to do in order to have our properties part of the amended general plan since they are considering amending it for these properties? Can our properties be included and be amended at the same time? General Plan Amendments must be initiated by either the City Council or the Planning Commission, if you would like to amend the General Plan designation for your properties, you would have to gather consent from all the property owners and submit a request to initiate a General Plan Amendment for the area. The fee for this is a one-time application fee of $250. It would not be a part of this General Plan Amendment as we would have to look at environmental impacts an the amendment of the entire area. Monica Esparoa Associate Planner � 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, Q\9024 Office: (562)904'7154 Email: mesparza@downeyca.org From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200-Aff||iate) Sent: Thursday, September Z8/2O179:35Ay4 To: MonicaEsparzm Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 1OZZ1Downey Avenue I case you missed my last e-mail, here it is below. If you have time I'd like to know the answers. Also, what is the current -status -of the -new application? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez zzz ---0etwmyk--2onmnozi(aa±ior*s—GpecLa]ist---(NCB JeL/DSm-nSoC --`'---'----`-- Off. (818)393-5943 Coo0a (8I8)393-5800 Cel. (s62)760-1791 FAX (818)393-06I2 From, Jimenez, Daniel(9200-Affiliate) Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 14:35 PM To: Monica Espacco Cc: Jimenez, Daniel(9200-Affiliate) Subject: RE: 1U221Downey Avenue . lowever, I do have additional questions and concerns; I'll list them below; hopefully you can answer t em • What changed orbetter yet; what isthe perceived benefit tochanging the rezoning and adding these units that the city council and planning commission are considering it? • Has the owner consider just developing 4 units? As in a duplex on each property? • Does the planning commission consider the loss of privacy and valid issue; since the current houses are only one story and the planned units will be two or three with clear visibility to our back yards and property lots? • How high can they build these units ifapproved? • What's the height limitation of the backside wall dividing the properties? • What would the property owners on La Reina have to do in order to have our properties part of the amended general plan since they are considering amending it for these properties? Can our properties be included and be amended atthe same time? U Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel . JimenezUpl . nasa . gov Off. -(818)393-5943 CO (818)393-5800 Cel. (562)760-1791 FAX (818)393-0612 From: Monica Esparza [mailto:mesparza downeor ;] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 13:40 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Good afternoon Daniel, The maximum amount of units he can have if these two lots are zoned R-2 is 14 units. However, because of parking and landscaping requirements, the applicant is planning to submit for 11 or 12 units. This is less than the 19 units they could have built if it was zoned R3. They have not submitted development plans for the project because the rezoning of the lots needs to take place prior to us being able to review a proposal for R2. The Planning Commission and the City Council are open to amending the general plan and zoning map to accommodate the R2 development. There will be another Planning Commission hearing for this project. You will be notified of this hearing when the date is set. Monicas rz Associate Planner LCity/-4Downey 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562) 904-7154 Email: mesparza_@downeyca.org From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [mailto`.Daniel. I impn--f—I nasa o�v] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 7:12 AM To: Monica Esparza Subject: Re: 10221 Downey Avenue Good morning Monica, Thank you for the reply; l figured they would reapply. I do have a few questions if you don't mind. What is the maximum amount of units he can put in an R2 zone? Have they submitted any actual plans to develop? Has the city planning committee made a decision or are they standing by their no change to the general plan? Is there going to be another city planning hearing? 10 Kind regards, Daniel Jimenez III (626)824-6613 iPhone On Sep 12, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Monica Esparza <mesparza@downeycaorg> wrote: Hi Daniel, The property owner did submit a new application to change the zoning of both properties to R-2. This still means multiple -family housing, however, it is less density than R-3 would allow. Density for the R-2 zone is 1 unit/ 2, 500 SF and R-3 is 1 unit/ 1,815 S.F. Let me know if you have more questions. Thanks, UZEEU� <image001Jpg> 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562) 904-7154 Email: Wires parza i2_d_o_w_n_eYc_a_0_r9 From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Fmailto;D-a-n-i-el-,-Yt-m-e--n-e-z-@jgl-.-n-a-s-a-..9-0'-vI Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 2:14 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Monica Hope you had a great labor day break. I just wanted to follow up and see if there has been any recent movement on behave of this property and the new owners. Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel,Jimenez@pl.nasa Dov Off. (818)393-5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DocumENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND Dors NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TEcmvxcA.L DATA. From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Sent: Tuesday, August 22,_2017 10:20 AM To: Monica Esparza Subject: Re: 10221 Downey Avenue 11 I definitely will, but as a favor can you keep my contact info and if anything starts up again let me know, if possible. That way I'm ahead of the curve :). Kind regards, Daniel Jimenez III (626)824-6613 Phone On Aug 22, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Monica Esparza <rmes arzaC downeyca.or > wrote: He would have to restart at the Planning Commission level again. So please keep an eye out for that notice when you get it. Thanks, <irnage001.jpg: 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562) 904.7154 Email: Mesparza@clowneycaorg From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [mailto:Daniel sJ!Mene pl.na a.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:33 AM To: Monica Esparza Subject: Re: 10221 Downey Avenue Good morning Monica, Thank you for keeping me informed. Unless you have an idea of what the new owner plans to do with the property; I don't have any other questions for now. As l mentioned in my other email, hopefully it's not just a tactic to catch us off guard and resubmit it while we aren't paying attention. Since he withdrew the application, would he have to start the process all over again or can he restart it and begins where he last left off? Kind regards, - Daniel Jimenez III (626)824-6613 iPhone On Aug 22, 2017, at 8:36 AM, Monica Esparza <mesparzat downeyca.or > wrote: Good "morning Daniel, The City Council will not be discussing the project tonight since the Applicant withdrew his application. It is my understanding that the Council would have upheld the Planning Commission's In UZ= Monica Esparza Associate Planner 10 •- 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562) 904-7154 Ernalk m9sparza0dowogygp�m From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [mailto:DanielJimenez@jpl.nasa.gov] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:26 AM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Monica, I just wanted to ask if the City council will actually meet on this topic tomorrow? If so, would you have any recommendations when I speak to them to oppose the project? Kind Regards,- .Daniel egards,Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Danie1.Jimenez@jpl.nasa.12v Off, (818)393-5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DOCCMWT HAS BEEN REVXMVED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EAPORT-COntrolled TECHNIC -U D,TA. From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 2:51 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. I appreciate it. I'll just stay quiet until August 22nd (g. Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC 13 Daniel . Off. (818)393-5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REVIEffED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT-COnt�rolled TEcHNIcAL DATA. From: Monica Esparza rhna.ilto:me• d•ky o0m] 0 hgvtai Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 2,34 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel •' 1i Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue I'm assuming it was because there is a provision in the Code that prohibits overgrown weeds and debris on private property. Also, in order for any kind of construction to start, they would need a Building PermitIn order to obtain the Building Permit, they would need -approval -of a Site -Plan -Review, which wouldn't happen unless the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are approved. So that would take some time. Monica Esparza Associate Planner <irn3ge00Ljpg> 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 office: (562) 904-7154 From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) mailto.Daniel.Jimenez(cbit)l.nasa.aov] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 2:19 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hopefully the city council sides with you. I asked because I noticed they were already clearing things out over the weekend. However, I don't know if that was just regular maintenance to the property. Thank you for all your help during this process. Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniei.JimenezV i.nasa�=v Off. (818)393-5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 14 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TECHNICAL DATA. From: Monica Esparza [mailtoLmesparzadowneycaorg] @L---- ---- Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 1:50 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Daniel, I don't think the direction of the decision has changed. Monica Esparza Associate Planner <image00LjPg> 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562) 904-7154 Email: mes arza(@clowneyc �or From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [mailto -Daniel.] imenezAWI. nasa.gov] Sent. Monday, August 07, 2017 12:50 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel. Jimenez@j2D,l:.nasa.c gov Off. (818)393-5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TECHNICAL DATA. From: Monica Esparza [-mailtomesparza@-d-o-w-n-e-y-ca—.O—r-gI Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 12:31 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Daniel, Last time, the Mayor wanted sufficient time to review the project, This time, the City Manager will be out of town. The Council has 15 expressed that they prefer to have the City Manager present when deciding on General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes since these are legislative actions. Monica Esparza Associate Planner <image001Jpg> 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562) 904-7154 From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [mailto.*Daniel.limenez@jpl,naso,gov] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 12:27 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Monica, - Thank you for this information. I will inform my neighbors, Would you know why this item keeps getting pushed and rescheduled? Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez XXX Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DSN-DSOC Daniel Li ae n e_z@jl. n nas a . g o v Off. (818)393-5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND DOES NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TEcwqxcA.L DATA. From: Monica Esparza [m_aHto*mesparza@downgyca.org] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 12:15 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Daniel, I just wanted to let you know that the Zone Change has been rescheduled, again, to the Tuesday, August 22, 2017 City Council hearing. Please notify your neighbors. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Monica Esparza Associate Planner <iMage001.jPg> 11111 Brookshire Avenue 16 Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562) 904-7154 am From: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) [mailtoQ Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:03 PM To: Monica Esparza Cc: David Blumenthal; Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Subject: RE: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Monica, Thank you for reaching out to me this afternoon and for your assistance during this planning phase. I just want to make sure that my neighbors and I have the opportunity to attend and express our concerns to the city council in person. Kind Regards, Daniel Jimenez III Network Communications Specialist (NCS) JPL/DS14-DSOC Daniel-Jimeng @ l.nasa.9�2v Off. (818)393-5943 Cel. (626)824-6613 COMM (818)393-5800 FAX (818)393-0612 THIS Docui-mNT HAS BEEN REvxKwzD FOR EXPORT CONTROL AND Dozs NOT CONTAIN EXPORT -Controlled TEcRuicAL DATA. From: Monica Esparza [majlto-Mgqpqgg@�downe +caror ] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 2:40 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel (9200 -Affiliate) Cc: David Blumenthal Subject: 10221 Downey Avenue Hi Daniel, This email serves as written proof that the originally scheduled request for a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment for 10221 Downey Avenue on July 11, 2017 will be continued to the August 8, 2017 City Council hearing at 6:30 p.m. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Monica Esparta Associate Planner <irnage001.jpg> 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Office: (562) 904-7154 Email: mesoarza(@downevca.orR