HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 20-3125RESOLUTION NO. 20-3125
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DOWNEY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLN -20-00042
(MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT), A REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION
9520.08 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO GENERAL
WALL, FENCE, AND HEDGE REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR ELECTRIFIED
SECURITY FENCING IN C -M, M-1 AND M-2 ZONED PROPERTIES
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. An application was filed by Keith Kaneko and Carol Bausinger (hereinafter
referred to as "the Applicant" on April 9, 2020, requesting approval of a Municipal
Code Amendment (PLN -20-00042) to allow for electrified security fencing within
the C -M, M-1 and M-2 zones throughout the city. Due to missing information, the
application was deemed incomplete; and,
B. On May 11, 2020, the Applicant resubmitted the required information needed to
complete the application. Accordingly, Staff deemed the application complete on
June 8, 2020; and,
C. On June 2, 2020, 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,
D. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 15, 2020,
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
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.
SECTION 3. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said
public hearings, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that it cannot
make the required positive findings to approve the requested Municipal Code Amendment as
described below:
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 SB
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 SB 582
Resolution No, 20-3125
Downey Planning Commission
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:
Program 8.3.1.4. — Discourage the use of street yard setbacks for uses and
activities inconsistent with portraying a positive image of the community.
Program 8.3.1.5. — Discourage security devices and fenceAvall designs that
portray an image that the community is unfriendly and uninviting.
The proposed amendment to allow for electrified security fencing by right in the M-1,
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.
SECTION 4. Based upon the findings set forth in Section 1 through 3 of this Resolution, the
Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby recommends that the City Council deny the
Municipal Code Amendment (PLN -20-00042).
Resolution No. 20-3125
Downey Planning Commission
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 2020.
Migu u e, Chairman
City Planning Commission
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 15th day of July,
2020 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Owens, Dominguez, Spathopoulos, Frometa and Duarte
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
Mary, avanagh, Secrktafy
City Planning Commission