HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 20-7962 - Denying Electrified Fencing in C-M, M-1 & M-2 Zoningig V T
:'NMI
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2020, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing, and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered
at the aforesaid public hearing adopted Resolution 20-3125, recommending the City Council
deny the Zone Code Amendment request; and,
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2020, a notice of the pending zone code amendment was
published in the Downey Patriot as a 1 /8th page ad in accordance with the requirements of the
Downey Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 8, 2020,
to fully consider all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions regarding the zone code
amendment request; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, determines and declares that pursuant to Section
15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; 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 requested amendment is not necessary and desirable for the development of
the community and is in the interests or furtherance of the public health, safety, and
general welfare. The applicant seeks to allow electrified security fencing by right,
without discretionary review by staff or the Planning Commission, subject to the
standards established in California Civil Code Section 835, through adoption of SIB
582. Electric fences produce an electrical charge that when in contact with a person
or animal creates an electrical shock with the purpose to cause enough harm or
discomfort to prevent additional contact. The regulations adopted through SIB 582
provided guidelines to regulate the installation of electrified security fences and
standardize safe installation of such fences. The regulations do not identify
maintenance standards that would alleviate concerns identified by the Fire
Department who stated that poor maintenance can lead to a potential source of fire
due to the accumulation of combustible waste and vegetation. The applicant has
stated the need for security is the reason the proposed code amendment should be
approved but, does not acknowledge that the code already provides provisions for
additional security measures when needed and properly evaluated by the Planning
Commission through a Site Plan Review application. The applicant has not shown
how the proposed amendment is necessary for the furtherance of public health,
safety, and general welfare. In contrast, the concerns of the Fire Department indicate
the proposed amendment can be a potential detriment to public health, safety, and
general welfare.
B. The proposed amendment is in general conformance with the General Plan. Goals
and policies established in the General Plan provide the guidance that shapes all
development within the City. All action taken by the City must be in conformance with
these goals and policies. The proposed amendment, however, is contrary to General
Plan Policy 8.3.1, which is in place to promote the enhancement of property views
from public streets to exhibit a positive image. This Policy is supported by the
following programs:
— MiTS-7TTIVErMCM - DA
1r,AGE 2
turgeamolm"Ll of U 8
M-2, and C-M zones is in stark contrast to this General Plan Policy. The current
zoning map shows that nearly all M-1, M-2 and C-M zones are located along the
city's major and primary arterial streets. The proposed amendment would allow
double barrier fencing with a standard six foot tall fence or wall followed by a ten foot
tall electrified security fence and excessive warning signage. This requested
amendment has the potential to negatively affect the entry points into the city
resulting in an image that the community is unfriendly and uninviting. The proposed
amendment to allow electrical security fencing portrays a negative image on the
community and sets uninviting tones to visitors that travel into the city along the
major arterial streets.
NOVV* THEREFOREi THE CITY COUNCIL OF THECITY OF DOWNEY DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and cause the
same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8 th day of September, 2020.
CL DiA M. FROMtTAB Mayor Pro Tern
F-A iT
4A &IfLlCftAMAATE,���
City Clerk
I I • • n
PAGE 3
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of
the City of Downey at a regular meeting held on the 8tn day of September, 2020, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members: Ashton, Rodriguez, Saab, Frometa
NOES: Council Member: None.
ABSENT: Council Member: Mayor Pacheco
ABSTAIN: Council Member: None.
4A—VRA�LICIA DUART , CMC
City Clerk