The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About12-14-2004 PLANNING COMMISSION ,� c�t�� of �YNWOOD �� •'.t.�mFfiC� CII• �� C�ty �ueef�n� Cti��enges � I 0�' � 17330 BULIIS ROAD . LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90262 (310) 603-0220 AGENDA LYNWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - 6:30 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11330 BULLIS ROAD �` � _ �\ �c��\ F€ �.. e>�5� � �1 t� zr LYNWOOD, CA 90262 cirvoru ';V4'VOOD �,� __ � .. .-.-irF December 14, 2004 i�F �• o�� zooa A6i PM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS 7,8,s ; <�� L';':?;?i2i3�4 i 5 i 6 �� c-e� l.. �\��c ]im Morton ;; C��`L�� Chair - Carlos Manlapaz Victor Gomez Kenneth West ; Commissioner Vice Chair Commissioner Lourdes Castro-Ramirez Rita Patel Juan Enciso Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner .� . �� COMMISSION COUNSEL � ]ennifer Mizrahi, Depury City Attorney � Law Offices of Beltran and Medina `� STAFF ; Arthur Barfield, Grant Taylor, Director i Planning Associate Development Services : � � Hi\VORDFILE�PLANNINGV GENDA\decemberlQ20W.dac , — 1 — I OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Call rneeting to order. 2. Flag Salute. 3. Roll cali of Commissioners. 4. Certification of Agenda Posting. 5. Minutes of Planning Commission Meetings: November 9, 2004 6. Planning Commission Awards & Acknowledgement Staff and the Planning Commission acknowiedgement and appreciation of services from past Lynwood Planning Commissioners: • Donald Dove • Wiilard "Hawn" Reed • Hector Abarca • William Araujo CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-32 APPLICANT: Manuel Carrillo 11040 Louise Avenue � Assessor Parcel Number 6194-028-014 i Pro osal l i Request to construct a second single-family residence, one-story in height, with an attached ` three-car garage. The property is a through lot with an existing residence facing Louise , Avenue and the proposed residence wouid face Wright Road. The property is located at 11040 j Louise Avenue in the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone. i � � i H\WORDFlLE�PLA,9S1\G�4GENDA\decembcrla,?OOi.doc . I _ � _ I Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 3040 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-32. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-34 APPLICANT: Estella Sandoval 11210 Louise Avenue Assessor Parcel Number 6194-026-012 Proposal Request to construct two (2) "attached residences (duplex), two-stories in height with an attached three-car garage and provide three (3) open parking stalis on property located at 11210 Louise Avenue in the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residentiai) zone. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 3046 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-34. 9. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-35 APPLICANT: Jose Cortez 11838 Wright Road Assessor Parcel Number 6188-009-012 Proposal � Request to construct a second single-family residence, one-story in height, and a detached � four-car garage on property located at 11838 Wright Road in the R-3 (Multiple-Family i, Residential) zone. i � � Recommendation ( Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 3047 approving Conditional � Use Permit No. 2004-35. f � H:\W00.DFILE�PLANNI�.'GUGE\Dn\dtt<mberla 3004.doc � -3 � 10. Conditionai Use Permit No. 2004-36 APPLICANT: Fernando Lopez 11276 Duncan Avenue Assessor Parcel Number 6194-016-029 Pro osal Request to construct two (2) attached residences (duplex), two-stories in height with six (6) parking stalls provided by a two-car garage, a carport and three (3) open parking stalis on properly located at 11276 Duncan Avenue in the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 3048 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-36. il. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-37 APPLICANT: Donald Chae 11215 Long Beach Boulevard, Building B-5, Ur�it #1001 �;� Plaza Mexico/Lynwood Towne Center "' Proposal Request to develop and operate a multi-tenant jewelry retail center within a 4,650 square foot tenant area to include sixty-three (63) retail tenant spaces. Building B-5 totals 12,000 square feet and is located immediately adjacent to and north of the Food 4 Less Store in the CB-1 (Controlled Business) zone. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Pianning Commission accept the applicanYs request to withdraw i the item. ! 12. Zoninq Ordinance Amendment No. 2004-02: Update`:Lvnwood Zoninq Code APPLICANT: City of Lynwood � All properties in Lynwood City limits � H9WORDFILE�PLAN4MGWGENDA\d�ccmbm Ia,200a.doc -4- Pro osal For the Planning Commission to consider an ordinance updating Chapter 25 of the Lynwood Municipal Code (Zoning Code). The new zoning code would be consistent with the Lynwood General Plan, implement four (4) new zoning designations, remove inconsistencies, address sensitive land uses, and provide a base for regular updates. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the draft zoning code, identify revisions and continue the item to the next regular meeting. Staff will bring back a clean revised zoning code for consideration. CONTYNUED itEGULAR AGENDA ITEMS NEW REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC ORALS � COMMISSION ORALS I 1. Inclusionary Zoning / Affordabie Housing — Commissioner Castro-Ramirez STAFF ORALS 1. Boards & Commission Christmas Party — December 17, 2004 ' 2. Planning Commission Reorganization — January 11, 2005 I 3. Agenda Items — January 11, 2005 I ADJOURf�BNlENT I ', Adjourn to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 11, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the Ciry Hall Council Chambers, 11330 Bullis Road, Lynwood, California. � H\WORDFlLE�PL.VdNfNGV GENDA\dttcmberla,200a.COC � � 5 ' AG�i�DA tTEM N0. �-____�.�..�. �� 0 �rllotca�5 :� LYNWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 9, 2004 The Lynwood Planning Commission met in regular session in d�e City Hall Council Chambers. Chair Morton culled the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. Commissioner Manlapaz led the flag salute. Chair Moiton requested the roll call. Direcror of Development Services Taylor called roll. Chair Morton presidin�. � Commissioner's Patel, Ramirez, Manlapaz, Enciso and West answered the roll call. � Vice Chair Gomez was absent � Director of Development Services T�ylor stated t6at Vice Chair Gomez had called and said he would be late due to a work commitment. Also present were Planning Commission staff liaisons Deputy Ciry Attorney Jennifer i Mizrahi, Director of Development Services Grant Taylor and Planning Associare Art Barfield. Chair Morton asked if the agenda had been duly �osted. Director of Development Services Taylor stated the a�enda hud been duly posted in accordance with the Brown Act. � Director of Development Services Taylor introduced two (2) staff inembers Jonathan � Colin, Business License Manager and Miguel Alvarez, Public Works Associate Engineer. Item #5: MINUTES — October 12, 2004 � Chair Morton announced agenda [tem #5, Minutes of the October I2, 2004 Planning � Commission meeting and asked if the Commission's had any revisions or questions. � ', Motion by Commissioner Patel to approve the October 12, 2004 minutes, seconded by i Commissioner Manlapaz. Director of Development Services Tuylor called roll. The motion to approve passed 6-0-I. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Morton requested Deputy Ciry Attomey Mizrahi to swear in all citizens wishing ro testify on a�y agenda item in English and Spanish. Deputy City Attomey Mizrahi requested all citizens wishing to testify please stand they were duly sworn in both English and Spanish. Item #6: Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-26 APPLICANT: Fidel Alvarez 5137 Walnut Avenue Assessor Parcel No. 6189-037-014 Chair Morton announced continued public hearing a�enda item #6 and requested a staff report. Director of Development Services Taylor presented the staff report and stated die applicant is requesting approval to construct a duplex that would be two-stories in height with a detached two-car garage. The existine residence would be demolished and the existing two-cxr garage would remain. The subject properry is located at SL37 Walnut Ave�ue in the R-2 (Two-F�mily Residential) zone. Director of Development Services Taylor stated the item was continued from the last meeting and the Planning Commission directed the applicant to improve the front elevations so [he building would not look so "boxy". The applicant nresented the revised � elevations to include a decorative e�try way, installing window trim, and fascia board trim below the roof. Chair Morton opened the public hearing. , Fidel Alvarez, Si37 Walnut Avenue, Lynwood is the property owner �and spoke in support. � � Deputy City Attorney Mizrahi translated Spanish to En�lish. � � Commissioner West inquired about [he project und modifications. Director of Development Services "I'aylor stated the applicant has not revised the plans � three or four times and has been cooperative with staff. � Chair Morton closed the public hearing. 4 � Commissioner Ramirez stated the elevations have been improved and will provide a better project. Commissioner West inquired about a�ate adjacent ro the alley and sug�ested "Creeping Fig" vines on the wall to discourase giaftiti. Director of Development Services Taylor stated a pedesh�ian �ate may be on die back wall but not wide enough forvehiele access. Vehicle access must be provided from Ihe front of the propeny off Walnut Avenue. Mr. Taylor stated conditions could be added to permit a pedestrian gate only and require creeping fi� vines on the rear wall facing the �lley. Motion by Commissioner Ramirez to adopt Resolution 3031 as amended to include the additional two (2) conditions and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-26, setonded by Commissioner P�tel. Direcror of Development Services Taylor called roll and the motion to approve passed 6- 0-I. A RESOLUTION ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION OF'CHE PLANNING CaA4MISSION OP TAG CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE P�KMIT NO. 2004-26, TO CONSTRUCT TWO ATTACHED RESIDENCES (DUPLEX), T�i'O-STORIES IN HEIGHT AND TWO (2) ATTACHED TVVO-CAR GARAGGS, LOCATEll A'f 5137 WALYUT AVENUE, IN THE R-2 (T�VO FANIILY R�SIDENTIAL) ZONE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS ASSP:SSOR PARCEL NUMBER 6189-037•014, CITY OF LYNWOOD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ROLL CALL AYLS: CASTRO-RAMIREZ, ENCISO, MANLAPA7, NIOR'CON, PATEL & WEST NOES: NONE ABSENT: GOMEZ ABSTAIN: NONE NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 Item #7: Conditional Use Permit No. 2004•31 APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless c/o Velocitel � 3680 Imperial Highway Assessor Parcel No. 6173-015-026 Chair Morton announced new public hearing agenda itcm #7 and requested a staff report. � Director of Development Services Taylor presented the staff report and stated the + applicant is reques[ing approval of a conditional use permit to instsill an unmanned � wireless telecommunication faciliry ro include six (6) untennas and equipment cabinets � mounted on the roof of an existing five-srory medical office Building (Srockwell � Building) located at 3680 Imperial Hi�hway in the H-M-D (Hospital-Medicaf-Dental) zone. Mc Taylor stated the building is seventy-two feet (72') in heiaht and thc plans indicate the antennas are small und their centedine would be at 74 t�eet. Chair Morton opened the public he:�rin�. Ryan Hammersmith, 9801 Finch Avenue, Irvine, spoke in support. Commissioner Manlapaz asked the antenna length and location of attachment. Ryan Hammersmith stated the antennas will be Pour feet (4') in IenRth, ��ill be attached to the parapet wall a�d will be painted to match the existing buildin�. � Director of Development Services Taylor read n letter of opposition that was submitted from Enrique Ara�da who resides at I 1023 Srockwell Drive. Mr. Ar�nd�i cited u�affic and parking problems, crime and health risks. Ryan Hammersmith spoke in rebuttal stating the project would require one vehicle per month for maintenance and would not increase crime or health risks. Commissioner Enciso srated he did not see how cellular antennas «�ould affect crime or traffic. Chair Monon closed the public hearin=. �� Motion by Comnussioner Patel to adopt Resolutio❑ 3038 approving Conditional Use � Permit No. 3004-31, seconded by Commissioner Manlapaz. � Ch�ir Morton requested roll call. � Director of Development Services Taylor called roll and the motion to approve passed 6- 0- t. A RESOLUTION ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OP' THE CITY OF LYN�'1'OOD APPROVING CONDIT[ONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-31, APPROVING INSTALLATION OF AN UNMANNED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION P'ACILPCY'CO INCL011E SIX (6) ROOF MOUN7'ED ANTENNAS AND EQUIP�4ENT CAI3INL'PS ON'I'HL ROOF IN A 225 SQUARE FOOT LEASE AREA, ON THG ROOF OF'CHE FIVE-S7'OKY � NIGDICAL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATEll AT 3680 Ih4PERIAL HIGHWAY IN � THE H-M-D (HOSPITAL-MEDICAL-DENTAL) ZONG, �URTHER DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUVIBER G173-015-026, CITY OF I LYNWOOD, COUNTY OF LOS ANG�LES, STA'1'Is OF CALII�OI2NIA. I ROLL CALL I AYES: CASTRO-RAMIRCZ, ENCISO, NIr1NLAPAZ, MOR'CON, PATLL & ; WEST NOES: NONE ' ABSENT: GOMEZ I ABSTAIN: NONE Item #8: Variance No. 2004-04 and Site Plun Review No. 2004-30 APPUCANT: Hezi Kashanian, Chan Ku and Eshagh Kerm.ini 10900, 10910 and 10930 Long Beach Boulevard Chair Morton announced new public hearing age�da item #8 and requested the staff report. Planning Associate Barfield presented the staff report and said the applicants are requesting approval of a variance to reduce minimum parking requirements from 103 , parking stalls to 66 parking stalls in conjunction with devclo�ment� of a 35,845 square foot retail shopping center that was approved by the Site Plan Review Committee. In addition, staff recomme�ds certifying a Negative Declaration/Initial Study Environmental Review. Mr. Ba�eld stated three (3) property ow�ers have consolidated to create one project that would include: � • Cutting the existing building in half providing a 8,142 square foot retail buildino with 23 parking stalls in front. • Renovatin� the interior of a vaca�t 9,785 square foot building to prc�vide a multiple tenant buildin�. • Demolishir.g an auto repair business and a two-story apartment buildin� and constructing a 7,918 square foot commercial buildin�. Mr. BarYield stated the property is located on the east side of Lon� Beach Boulevard � between Elizabeth Avenue and Norton Avenue in the C-2A (Medium Commercial) zone � and would be architecturally compatible with the new development directly across the sU�eet. � Director of Development Services Taylor commented that although a parking variance is required, the project actually increased parkinb stxlls and improves traffic circulation. If �� the project were not approved the properties would remain vacant and blighted. Deputy Ciry Attorney Mizrahi stated that in order to approve a��ariance a hardship would need to be demonstrated. I, Commissioner Manlapaz inquired about trucks deliverine supplies. I � � Commissioner West inquired about die plans that say 96 parking stalls are avail�ble � rather than 66. �j Direcror of Development Services Taylor stated that there are physically 66 parking � stxlls, however, the property ow�ers have executed �� shared parking agreement and with � various hours of operation 96 parkin� stalls arc available. I � Commissioner Ramirez expressed concern about inadequate parking in the vicinity and � � the proximity of the properry to residences and the St. Emydius Church. � � . Commissioner Enciso inquired if more parkin� could be provided. � Chair Morton opened the public hearing. Hezi Kashanian, 13807 Mulholland Drive, Los Angeles spoke in support. Mr. Kashani�n � stated more parking is being provided and improved on-site traffic circulation. Mr. Kashanian provided color renderin�s. Commissioner Ramirez inquired if the applicant could inerease the number of p�u�king stalls. Mr. Kashunian stated if more parking stalls were added, traffic circulution ai�d safety would become a problem. Chair Morton closed the public hearin�. Director of Development Services Taylcr stated staff explored potentially using angled parkina stalls (i.e. 3Q 45 or 60 degree angles) however, on-site trafPic circulation would be compromised and traffic safety would become a concern. Demolition of part of the buildi�g at 10900 Long Beach Blvd., re-striping parking stalls, and providing driveways from Long Beach, Norton and Elizabeth is the best and safest parkin� configuration. Commissioner Ramirez inquired about City trolley stops in the area. � Planning Associate Barfield stated there are three (3) trolley stops in the area to include: • Norton and Lon� Beach • Martin Luther Kina Jr. and Lon� Beach • Imperial and Lone Beach Commissioner West stated the plans identify a potential of twenty-two (22) tenant spaces, inquired about the �umber of tenants and about a study for different �enant uses. Commissioner Enciso stated the proposal was a good project overalL Direcf r' v 0 ot De elopinent Services Taylor stated the number of tenant spaces is based� on market demand and no study had been performed. � Deputy City Attorney Mizrahi stated that is the Commission elec[s to approve the project, � � the resolution should include the three (3) parking variance findin�s set forth in Lynwood l Municipal Code Section 25-26.9. 1 Motion by Commissioner Manlapaz to certify the Negative Declaration/lnitial Study, � adop[ Resolutio❑ 3039 as amended and appro��e Variance No. 2004-04, seconded by 1 Commissioner Enciso. i � Deputy Ciry Attorney Mizrahi sug�ested taking separate votes on the environmental � review and the variance. Commissioner Ramirez expressed concern over purking shorta�e� in the area and feels more patking could be provided. Chair Morton requested roll call. Director of Development Services Taylor called roll on the environmental review and the motion to approve passed 5-0-2 with Commissioner Ramirez abstaining. Direcror of Development Services T�ylor called roll on the variance and the motion to approve passed 5-1-1 with Commissioner Ramirez votin� no. A RESOLUTION ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANN[NG CONIMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING VARIANC� NO. 2004-04, REDUCING MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS FOR PARKING STALLS, FROM 103 TO 66, FOR A NEW SHOPPING CENTER, AYPROVED UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2004-30, LOCATED AT 10900 —10930 LONG BEACH I30ULEVARD, CITY OF CITY OFLYN�VOOD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, IN THE C-2A (MEDIUM COMNIERCIAL) ZONE. ROLL CALL AYES: ENCISO, MANLAPAZ, MORTON, PATEL & WEST NO�S: CASTRO-RAMIR�Z ABSENT: GOMEZ AI3S1'AIN: NONE Item #9: Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-32 AVPLICANT: Manuel Carrillo � � � 1 1040 L,ouise Avenue Assessor Parcel Number 6194-028-014 Chair Morton announced new public hearing agenda item #9 and requested a staff report. � Direcror of Development Services Taylor presented the staff report and stated� the applicant is requestin� approval of a conditio�al use permit to construct a second single- � family reside�ce, one-srory in height, and an attached three-car garage. The property is a through �lot with the existing residence facing Louise Avenue and [he rear of the lot where i the new unit would be conswcted faceti Wri�ht Road. Thc property is irregultir in shape I and totals 7,475 square feet i� area located in the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone. . � � Commissioner West enquired about the number of garage parkino stalls. Director of Development Services Taylor stated the existing residence has a onc�-car" �� garage and the new residence would provide an attached two-car garagc as well as ` another one-car garage for [he existing residence. i � I Commissioner Enciso suagested that the property owner repair the Qara��e door on d�e existine garaee. � Chair Morton opened the public heuing. The applicant wns not present. Chair Morton closed the public hearing. Deputy City Attorney Mizrahi suggested continuing the item to allow the applicant an opportunity to testify. Motion by Commissio�er West to continuc the item to the next meeting, seconded by Commissioner 6nciso. � Motion to continue passed by general consensus. Vice Chair Gomez arrived at 7:58 p.m. Item #10: Conditiunal Use Permit No. 2004-33, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-Ofi i62163), Zone Chanae No. 2004-04 and Variance No. 200d-05 � APPLICANT: Hermelio Franco South side of Fernwood Avenue; north of the 1-105 (Cenlw�y) Freeway between Bullis Rd. and Atlantic Ave. Assessor Parcel Numbers 6174-001-900.901 and 6l8)-012-902 throu�h 908 Chair Morton announced new public hearing aoenda item #10 and requested a staff report. Director of Development Services Taylor presented the staff report and stated the applicant is requestin� approval to construct thirty-nine (39) single-Yamily residences, two-stories in hei�ht, with attached two-car garages and consu�uct seven (7) common lots (pocket purks) on excess Caltrans property. The project area consists of three (3) vacant parcels totaling approximately 176,500 square feet or 4.05 acres in area. The proje�ct requires four (4) discretionary approval and environmental revicw to iRClude: • Conditional Use Permit to construct 39 detached residences; and � • Tentative Tract Map to subdivide three parcels in 47 lots; and • Zone Change ro changing the zoning from "no zone" to PRD (Planned Residenti�il � Development); and � • Variance to reduce minimum street side yard setbacks (rom 10 fect to 7 feet and � reduce minimum lot sizes to less than 3,500 square feet for 13 lots; and � a CeRify the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. I j Commissioner Ramirez inquired about the General Plan desianation that shows Open � ' Space. 1 i I ---- — Direc[or of Development Services Taylor apologized and stated the map is the � •� preliminary map approved by the Planning Commission and not thc final map approved � , � by the Ciry Cou�cil. The Planning Commission recommended Open Space for the subject property but the Ciry Council chan�cd the General Plan designation ro Multi- Family Residential. Commissioner Ramirez stated the City has a severe park deficiency as the General Pla❑ states parklund should be provided at one acre per 1,000 people. ° Chair Morton opened the public hearino. Ortelio Avila, 7453 Becera Streel, Downey, is the architect who spoke in support. Mr. Avila stated five of the, houses N�ould be for low/moderate income persons and the � applicant is not asking for any money from the City. Commissioner Enciso inquired about Covenant, Conditions and Resu�ictions lor the project to include park maintenance, repairs, etc. � � Mc Avila st�ited a homeowner's association would be created and CC&R's implemented. Commissioner Ramirez inquired about fhe architect's experience and public noticin�. Mr. Avila stated �he has 20 years of desien esperience and is a buildina inspector by trude. Director of Development Services Taylor stated that notices w�ere mailed to �ill property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and the public heari�g was noticed in the � local Lynwood Press (Wave) ❑ewspaper. (n addition, the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency conducted hearings on the ENA (Exclusive Ne�otiatin�� A�reement) and the � DDA (Development and Disposition Agreement). Paul Detilla, 12733 Bellt7ower Blvd., Downey is the enaineer and spoke in support. Mr. Detilla reviewed public works conditions nnd requested deletion or modification of Co�dition #40 stating a 12" warer muin is overkill and cosdy. Mr. Detillu said some of the conditions' cost is unknown and requested the potential tor Cily financial assistance. Mc Detilla requested a condition that states °where requirements for scw�er or water exceed projected costs, the developer would be reimbursed by lhe City." Vice Chair Gomez asked for a staff response. � Pubic Works Associate Engineer� Mipuel Alvarez staued the conditions are necessary to � offset costs that would be inherited by the City. Mr. Alvarez stated water and sewer lines � � in the area are very old a�d insufficient in size ro accommodatc the new residences, � therefore, upgrades are necessary. i � �' �' Vice Chair Gomez i�quired about the IZ" water li�e condition. � � ' Mr. Alvarez stated the water lines were installed in the 1920's and only addressed � housing on the north side of Fernwood Avenue. Houses on die south side of Fernwood � would require additional water pressure. I I � �Deputy Ciry Attorney Mizrahi stated there could be legal implications by the Planninb Commission approving monetary reimbursement �nd recommended against such a � conditio�. � Chair Morton advised the Commissioner's tha[ the Planning Commission does not revue money, politics or personal opinions. The Planning Commission revues land usc and conditions of approvxl. Director of Developmcnt Services Taylor stated the Planning Commission should �ct on � the item on the a�enda and should not consider money, politics or personal opinions. � Hermelio Franco, 9369 E. Gainford Street, Downey spoke in support and stated he would comply with all conditions in �the Resolution as is. � Maricio Rivas, 11618 Thorson Avenue spoke in opposition. Mr. Rivas cited parkinc, traffc, crime, graffiti and he wants a park instead. � Ortelio Avila spoke in rebuttal and stated there is adequate on-site parking via the garage � and room for three or four cars in the driveways. Chair Marton closed the public hearing. � Commissioner Ramirez stated the General Plan identiPies Fernwood Avenue as a collector �street, said there are 4.7 persons per household, the city is over crowded, Fernwood Avenue is narrow with parkin� on one side of the street Commissioner Ramirez also said only five houses :u�e designated for low/moderate income persons and 67% of Lynwood citizens fall into the low/moderate category. Commissioner R�mirez stated the pocket parks help but they are not enough und the subject property should be open space, and inquired if the pocket parks would be public. � � Director of Development Services Taylor stated the pocket parks would be for public use. Vice Chair Gomez stated the new General Plan is improved but stiil needs work. Vice Chair Gomez said the Ciry should encourage qualiry housing to property values will continue to increase. I Commissioner Ramirez said the City is not meeting its low incomc housing as 67% of the citizens are low income. The area should be open space and Ihe buildin� elevations could be improved. Commissioner Manlapaz irquired abou[ the General Plan and Zoning. Director of Development Services Taylor stated the General Plan Land Use Map designates the property as Mu1[i-Family Residential that is consistent with the proposed � • PRD (Planned Residential Development) zoning. The excess Caltrans property was State � owned, was designated transportation, and therefore has no zoning designation. State Law requires��the General Plan and Zoning desiUnations to be consistent to approve a � discretionary application. � I Commissioner Enciso inquired nbout the status of the new Ham Park. � � Commissioner Ramirez suggested vines on block walls. . Commissioner West encouraged vines on block walls preferably creeping fio. Vice Chair Gomez made a motio❑ to approve the project and all zonine entitlements, seconded by Commissioner Patel. Deputy City Attorney Mizrahi suggested voting on each entitlement separately. Chair Morton directed individual motions and roll calls. � Motion by Vice Chair Gomez to Certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, seconded by Commissioner Patel. Director of Development Services Taylor called roll and the er�vironmental review was approved 6-I with Commissioner Ramirez voting no. Motion by Vice�Chair Gomez to adopt Resolution 3043 approvin� Zone Change No. 2004-04 and recommend the City Council adopts an ordinancc, scconded by Commission Patel. � Director of Development Services Taylor called roll and Zone Chan�e No. 2004-04 was approved 6-1 with Commissioner Ramirez voting no. Motion by Vice Chair Gomez to adopt Resolution 3044 appro��ing Variance No. 2004-05, seconded by Commissioner Patel. � Director of Development Services Taylor called roll and Variance No. 2004-OS was approved 6-1 with Commissioner Ramirez voting no. Motion by Vice Chair Gomez ro adopt Resolution 3042 approvin� Tentative Tract Map , No. 2004-06, seconded by Commissioner Patel. � Director of Development Services Taylor called roll and the motion ro approve passed 6- I with Commissioner Ramirez votin� no. Motion by Vice Chair Gomez to adopt Resolution 3041 approving Conditional Use Permit No. �2004-33, seconded by Commissioner Patel. Director of Development Services Taylor callcd roll and the motion to approvc passed 6- I with Commissioner Ramirez votin� no. 1 A RESOLUTION ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION OF'PHE PLANNING i COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING 7.ONL' CHANGG � NO. 2004-04; CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION EROM "NO ZONE" TO PRD (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPM�NT) IN ORDLR'f0 � DEVELOP THIRTY-NINE (39) DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDGNCCS AND SEVEN (7) POCKET PARK ON VACAN'I' PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FERNWOOD AVENUL, NOR1'H OF THE I-105 (C�NTURY) FREEWAY, BETWEEN BULLIS ROAD AND A1`LANTIC AVENUE, FURTHER D�SCRIB�D AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUD4BLRS 6174- 001-900-901 AND 6189-012-902-908, CITY OF LYNWOOD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ROLL CALL AYES: ENCISO, GOMEZ, MANLAPAZ, MORTON, PATEL & WEST NOGS: CASTRO-RAMIREZ ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'CY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2004-US TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM KEQUIRED S1'REET SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM TEl�' FEET (10') TO SEVEN FEET (7') AND RGDUCG THE MINIi�TUNI LOT AREA ON THIRTE�N (13) PARCELS TO LESS THAN 3,500 SQUARE FEET IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT THIRTY-NINE (39) llETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENC�S AND SEVEN (7) POCKET PARKS ON VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FERNWOOD AVENUE, NORTH Or TH� I-105 (CENTURY) FREEWAY IN THE PRD (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVGLOPMENI') ZONE, FURTHCR DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARC�L NUMBERS 6174-001-900-90] AND 6189-012-902-908, CITY OF LYNWOOD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATG OF CALIFORNIA. ROLL CALL AYES: ENCISO, GOD4E7,, MANLAPA7, �40RTON, PATEL & WEST. NOES: CASTRO-RAMIRE7. ABSENT: NONE � ABSTAIN: NONE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED: A RESOLUI'ION OF 1'HE PLANNING CONIMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNVVOOD APPROVING TEN1'ATIVL TRACT NiAP NO. 2004-06 (62163), SOBDIVIDING THREE (3) CI"PY OWNI;D '� � � PARCELS INTO FOI2TY-SEVCN (47) LOTS FOR'PHIRTY-NINE (39 � � � I DrTACHEU SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDTNCES, SEVI:N (7) POCKE'I' PARKS, AND AN ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION TOK PROPERTY LOCATEll ON THE I SOUTH SIllE OF FERNWOOD AVLNUI: BE"I'WEEN BULLIS ROAU AND i ATLANI'IC AVENUE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL � � NUMBEKS 6174-001-900 & 901, AND 6189-012-900 & 908, CITY OF LYNWOOU, 1 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I I ROLL CALL AYES: �NCISO, GOMEZ, MANLAPA7, MORTON, PATEL S�VES'I' NOES: CASTRO-RAMIREZ ABSGNT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION Or THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING CONDII'IONAL USE PERNIIT NO. 2004-33, PERMITTING'CHE DEVELOPMENT OF THIRTY- - NINE (39) DGTACHED SINGLL FAMILY RESIDENCES, T�i'O-STORIES IN H�IGHT, WITH ATTACHGD TWO-CAR GARAGES ANll SEVEN (7) PUI3LIC LOTS (POCKET PARKS) FOR PROPEKTY LOCATI'sll ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FERNVVOOD AVENUE, NORTH OF TIiE I-105 (CL'NTUR�') FREE�VAY, ' BET�VEEN BUI.LIS ROAD AND ATLANTIC AVENUE FURTHER DESCRIBTD AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUNIBERS 6174-OO1-900 AND 901, 6189-012-900 AND 908, LYN�i'OOD, CAI.IFORNIA. ROLI, CALL AYES: ENCISO, GOMEZ, MANLAPAZ, MORTON, PATEL &�i'ES'C NOES: CASTRO-RAMIREZ ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE CONTINUED REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS NONE NEW REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS Item #11: ZoninQ Ordinance Amendment No. 2004-02 � APPICANT: City of Lynwood f City wide Zoning Code update Chair Morton announced new regular agenda item #1 I and requested a staff report. Director of Development Services Taylor presented a brief staff report stating the zoning code is outdated, inconsistent with [he General Plan and is overdue for updatino. Mr. 1 Taylor requested that the Plannin� Commission continue the irem to the next regular meeting on December 14, 2004. i Motion by Commissioner Manlapaz to continue, seconded by Vice Chair Gomez. 1 � IVlotion ro continue passed by general consensus. � I Item #]2: California Environmental Qualitv Act (CI;OA) APPLICANT: Presentation by Staff Chair Morton announced ��ew regular a�enda item # l2 and requested a staff report. � Direcror of Development Services Ta}�lor summarized CEQA goals, policies ai�d regulations and local government's responsibiliry to disclose and miti�ate environmental impacts. Mc Taylor summarired procedures ro include: • Exempt Activities • Initial Study • Nega[ive Declaration • Mitieated Neeative Declaration � • Draft Environmental Impact Reports • Final Environmental Impact Reports. � Mr. Taylor briefl�� reviewed the steps and summarized the attached flow chart. � The item was received .md filed by general consensus. PUBLIC ORALS NONE COMMISSION ORALS Commissioner Ramirez reques[ed the Planning Commissioner's receive an updated General Plan Land Use Map, also suggested a workshop/trainine seminar on the Geneial Plan. � Vice Chair Gomez stated its good ro discuss �ind express different opinions on projects. Mr. Gomez requested picture identificalion for the Planning Commissioner's. Commissioner Enciso suggested a badge for Planning Commissioner's and welcomcd Jonatha� Colin. Commissioner Manlapaz complime�ted staff and his colleugues. i Chair Monon commended his colleagues, staff and the Depury Ciry Attorney. j STAFF ORALS � l � � Director of Development Services Taylor commended the Planning Commission on � � being thorough and detail oriented. We have a bood team. I 1 Mr. Taylor reminded the Commission that reoraanization would be at the Januury meetins. ADJOi1RNMENT Motion by Vice Chair Gomez go adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Manlapaz. Chair Morton adjourned the meetin� at 9:45 pm. I I I � , � i I � �� i�EM �o. b CA�E N0. "� ' ��' �� DATE: December 14, 2004 � TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Grant Taylor, Director of Development Services . SUBJECT: Planning Commission Awards & Acknowledgement Staff and the Planning Commission acknowledgement and appreciation of services from past Lynwood Planning Commissioners" • Donald Dove • Willard "Hawn Reed • Hector Abarca . • William Araujo For your dedicated service and outstanding commitment. We sincerely appreciate the vision, courage and leadership you brought forth as a member of the Lynwood Planning Commission. I � � H:\WORDFILENLANNING\STAFFRPi�memo.pc.pasipcihanks.doc 1 � < r��EiV�A ITEM N0. � CASE N0. Gu� �m. B�°'� DATE: December 14, 2004 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Pianning Commission FROM: Grant Taylor, Director of Development Services BY: Jonathan Colin, Business License Manager SUB)ECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-32 11040 Louise Avenue Assessor Parcel Number 6194-028-014 APPLICANT: Manuel Carril�o PROPOSAL This item was continued during the Planning Commission's meeting of November 9, 2004. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a second single-family residence, one-story in height, and an attached 3-car garage. The properry is a through lot with the existing residence facing Louise Avenue and the rear of the lot where the new unit would be constructed faces Wright Road. BACKGROUND The subject property is an irregular shaped through lot located at 11040 Louise Avenue, on the east side of Louise Avenue, and west of Wright Road, and North of Elmwood Avenue, Assessor Parcel Number 6194-028-014, in the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone. The parcel totals 7,475 square feet in area. At present, there is an existing 1,220' one-story residence with an attached one-car garage, which will not be removed. ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION I The Lynwood Municipal Code (LMC) requires multiple family residential developments in R-3 zones to obtain approval of a conditional use permit. The project is consistent with both the General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential and the R-3 zoning for the property. The site has a General Plan designation of Multi-family Residential allowing 18 units per acre or 1 unit per 2,420 square feet of property. The parcel totals 7,475 square feet and could accommodate a maximum of three (3) residences. I I I � � CdDocumenLS and Scuings\jmlinUAy Docunxnit\CUPS\SutlReport\cup2U04-3?.doc -1- The site plan indicates a minimum 17'-0" front yard setback that increases to 33'-6" with access provided by a 10 foot driveway on the north property line. Landscaping exceeds the minimum thirty-five percent (35%) standard. The floor plan for the proposed structure indicates the residence wiil provide 1080' square feet of livable area consisting of three bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen, dining and living room. The garages are attached and total 600 square feet each. The elevations indicate the one-story structure that totals 14'-6" in height to the roof point and consists of stucco siding, and ARC 80/ Spanish Tile. Lynwood Municipal Code Section 25-25.7 sets forth four (4) findings the Planning Commission must make in order to grant a conditional use permit. Following are the findings in bold, and staff responses. A. The granting of the proposed conditional use permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the subject property is Multi-Family Residences that is consistent with the R-3 zoning designation. The project is consistent with the General Plan policies and goals in the Land Use and Housing Elements. B. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purpose of the zone in which the site is located. The project would be consistent with the R-3 zone pertaining to density and would satisfy aIl development standards to include but not be limited to setbacks, building height, landscaping and parking. C. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions ' under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Approval of the conditional use permit is permitted pursuant to Section 25-4 of the Lynwood Municipal Code. The project would provide new housing and assist the City's fair share of regional housing (RHNA) set forth by the State. Conditions of approval set forth in Resolution 3040 would mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. 1 I D. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the ; applicable provisions of this chapter, except for approved variances. I C:�Documenls and Settines\jcolin�Uy Dwunxnts�CUPS\SUftRcport\cup'_004-32.doc � � _ '� _ I The project would comply with all development standards set forth in the LMC. No variances are necessary. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Department has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines pursuant to Sections 15303(a). RECO M M E N DATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 3040 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-32. Attachments: 1. Project Profile 2. Location Map 3. Vicinity Map 4. Resolution 3040 5. Plans (Site, floor and elevations) f V I I i � � ' �� . � C:\DOCUmemsandSettings\jcolin�NyDocumentt\CUYS\StaflReport�<up200Y-7?.dac 3 1 PROJECT PROFILE Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-32 11040 Louise Avenue Assessor Parcei Number 6194-028-014 1. Source and Authoritv Lynwood Municipal Code (LMC) Section 25-4.2(a) sets forth permitted uses in residential zones; LMC Section 25-4.5 sets forth development standards in residential zones and LMC Section 25-25.7 sets forth findings approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 2. Propertv Location and Size The subject property is located at 11040 Louise Avenue, on the east side of Louise Avenue, west side of Wright Road, and North of Elmwood Avenue, Assessor Parcel Number 6194-028-014, in the R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zone. The property measures 7,475 square feet and is developed with a 1,220 square foot residence. At present, fhere is an existing one-story residence that will not be demolished and a currently existing attached one-car that will also not be removed. 3. Existina Land Uses Site Developed North: Single and Multi-Family Residential South: Single and Multi-Family Residential West: Single and Multi-Family Residential East: Single and Multi-Family Residential 4. Land Use Designation The subject parcels have a General Plan Designation of Multi-Family Residential that is consistent with the R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zoning. The adjacent properties General Plan and Zoning designations are as follows: �' I C:�DacumcnisnndSeuings\jcolinNlyDOCUments\CUPs\SlaffRepon4up200iJ?.doc I 4 Site General Plan Zonina North: Multi-Family Residential R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) South: Multi-Family Residential R-3 (Multi-Famify Residential) West: Multi-Family Residential R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) East: Industrial M (Manufacturing) 5. Site Plan Review The Site Plan Review Committee has reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to conditions of approval set forth in Resolution 3040. 6. Code Enforcement Historv No code enforcement case to date. 7. Public Response None of record at the time of this report. I� � � � i 1" � I • � � C:�DOCUments and Sertings�jcolinUAy Docunxnlc\CUPS\SU�1Reponkup2004d?.doc ' -5- � I RESOLUTION NO. 3040 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-32, TO CONSTRUCT ONE ATTACHED RESIDENCE, ONE-STORY IN HEIGHT AND ONE (1) ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE, LOCATED AT 11040 LOUISE AVENUE, IN THE R-3 (MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 6194-028-014, CITY OF LYNWOOD, COUNI'Y OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the Lynwood Pianning Commission, pursuant to law, on November 9, 2004 conducted a public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-32; and WHEREAS, the Lynwood Planning Commission considered all oral and written testimony offered at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Department has determined that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Ca�ifornia Environmentai Qualify Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(a), therefore; Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood hereby finds and determines as follows: A. The granting of the proposed conditional use permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. The zoning is R-3 (Muiti-Family Residential) and is consistent with the General Plan designation of Multi- Family ResidentiaL I B. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the zone in which the site in located. The subjed property is located in the R-3 zone and is sufficient in size and shape to accommodate three (3) residences and satisfy all applicable development standards. C. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under '° which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the � pubtic health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or � � C�DOCUmrn�s and Scuin65\jcolinUdY �umrnu\NPSU0a0 doc 1 ' . improvements in the viciniry. Conditions of approval have been included in the project pursuant to Resolution 3040 to mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. D. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Chapter 25 of the Lynwood Municipal Code except for approved variances. The project will comply with ali development standards set forth in LMC Section 25-4. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the Ciry of Lynwood hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-32, subject to all conditions, restrictions and limitations set forth as follows: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT -- 1. The conditional use must be acted upon within 180 days of approval. The Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void 180 days from the date of approval if not acted on within this period. One extension of 90 days may be granted if the extension is requested in writing prior to the end of the valid period, at the discretion of the Development Services Department. 2. The project shall comply with all regulations and standards set forth in the Lynwood Municipal Code, the California Building Code, the Los Angeles Counry Fire Code and all other City Departments. 3. The project shall be developed in accordance with plans approved by the Lynwood Planning Commission and on file in the Development Services Department, Planning Division. � 4. Any proposed subsequent modification of the subject site or structures thereon, shall be first reported to the Development Services Department, Planning Division, for review of said modifications. 5. The property owner shall sign a Statement of Acceptance stating that he/she has read, understands, and agrees to all conditions of this resolution prior to issuance of building permits. I I C\DOCUmcrosand5e�in65§mlin\MyDOCUrtenn\[�JPSU040doc �f — G 6. Conditions of approval shall be printed on plans prior to submission to the Building and Safety Division for plan check. PLANNING DIVISION 7. The project shall provide on 3-car garage. Such garage shall remain unobstructed and available for vehicfe parking at all times. 8. All driveways shall be permanently paved, maintained and remain ciear and accessible for vehicle access at all times. Driveway must be widened to reflect 12'. 9. Landscaped areas shall consist of a minimum of thirty-five (35%) percent of the gross lot area. The required front, rear, and side yards shall be landscaped and shall consist predominately of plant materials except for necessary walks, drives and fences. Landscaping and permanent irrigation systems shall be installed in the front yard setback area in accordance with detailed plans to be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. A six (6') foot high solid and sight-obscuring fence shall be installed around the perimeter of the properry, except within the twenty-foot (20') front yard setback area. Front yard fences shall not exceed four feet (4') in height and may be constructed of wrought iron or wrought iron with b�ock pilasters. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $2.24 per square foot to the Lynwood Unified School District. 12. Acoustical construction materials shall be used throughout the units to mitigate exterior noise to the standards and satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division. 13. The roof shall be constructed with a non-reflective materiai of concrete tile, Spanish tile, ARC 80 or equivalent subject to review by the Planning Commission. 14. Air conditioners, heating, cooling ventilation equipment, swimming pool pumps and heaters and ali other mechanical devices shall be located within the rear yard or side yards. Such equipment shall be screened from surrounding properties and streets and operated so that they do not disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring residents, in accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance. � 15. The property owner shall maintain a pro-active approach to the elimination of �. graffiti from the structures, fences and accessory buildings, on a daily basis. � Graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. i I C\DOCUmcnrsanASeuings\jmlin\MyDOCUmcros\CUPs'.30a0.doc 3 I 16. The applicant shall trim tree in front yard. 17. The applicant must obtain permits for security doors and bars. 18. New structures shall consist of colors reviewed and approved by the Development Services, Planning Division. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/ENGINEERENG DEPARTMENT 19. Submit a grading plan prepared and signed by a registered Civil Engineer, Property is located within the 100 year flood level zone per boundary map. Also conform to all applicable codes per section 12 �/z of Lynwood Municipal Code. Building above flood level will require substantial amount of fill, therefore, suggest alternative • methods of design to minimize amount of livable space at ground level. 20. Submit a grading plan prepared and signed by a registered Civil Engineer. Grading plan will be checked by the Department of Environmental Services. No buiiding permits will be issued prior to the approval of grading pian by the City Engineer. 21. Reconstruct damaged sidewalk along Wright Road. 22. Construct new drive approach(es) per APWA standards along Wright Road. 23. Connect to public sewer. Each building shall be connected separately. Construct laterals as necessary. Minimum size required is six inches (6"). When connecting to an existing lateral, a City approved contractor shall verify the size of such lateral and shall provide proof of its integriry by providing a video tape of the lateral to the Department of Environmental Services/Engineering Division. 24. Upgrade existing street metal pole with light fixture, underground services and conduits. Exact location shall be determined by the City Engineer. 25. Underground all new utilities. � j 26. A permit from the Engineering Division is required for all off-site improvements. I 27. All required water meters, meter service changes and/or fire protection lines shall be installed by the developer. The work shall be performed by a licensed contractor hired by the developer. The contractor must obtain a permit from the c.��o��i,,�asad� 4 Public Works/Engineering Division prior to performing any work. Each building shall have its own water meter. 28. Install one (1) 24" box street tree(s) per APWA standards along Wright Road. Species shall be determined by Environmental Services. A permit to install the trees is required by the Engineering Division. The exact location of the trees will be determined at the time the permit is issued. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION 29. All construction shali meet or exceed the minimum building standards that are referenced in the following codes. . � The Uniform Building Code - 2001 edition; ➢ The Uniform Plumbing Code - 2001 edition; � The Uniform Mechanical Code - 2001 edition ➢ The Los Angeles County Fire Code — 1999 edition; � The National Electric Code — 2001 edition; All as amended by the California Building Code of 2001. In cases where the provisions of the California Building Code, the City of Lynwood Municipal Code, or the pfans or specifications in these plans may conflict, the more restrictive provisions shall govern. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 30. The applicant shall comply with all conditions set forth by the Los Angeles County , Fire Department for this application. Please contact the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Land Development Unit, Fire Prevention Division, 5823 Rickenbacker Road, Commerce, CA 90040-3027, (323) 890-4243. Section 3. A copy of Resolution 3040 shall be delivered to the appiicant. � C\Ibamcn¢ and Smingsywlin\My Docvmcnis\CUPsU0a0.doc 5 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9 day of November, 2004, by members of the Lynwood Planning Commission, voting as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Jim Morton, Chairman Lynwood Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Grant Taylor, Director )ennifer Mizrahi, Deputy City Attorney Development Services Department Planning Commission Counsel I� � � � I c�o«��u�as�in� F Sycm��v.+rwc��ems�cursvoao.ao� 6 A��i�l�;,q ITc,'vl i�U. v � CA�E 6�0. G� �. �° � DATE: December 14, 2004 TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Grant Taylor, Director of Development Services BY: Art Ba�eld, Planning Associate SUB)ECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-34 11210 Louise Avenue Assessor Parcel Number 6194-026-012 . APPLICANT: Estella Sandoval — Owner / Angel Gonzales — Architect PROPOSAL � The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct two (2) . attached residences (duplex), two-stories in height, with an attached 3 car garage and provide three (3) open parking stalls on property located at 11210 Louise Avenue in the R-3 (Multipie-Family Residentiai) zone. PRO]ECT CHARACTERISTICS The subject property is located on the east side of Louise Avenue between Beechwood Avenue and Sanborn Avenue, in the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zone. The parcel has 45 feet of street frontage by 201 feet in depth totaling approximately 9,045 square feet in area. The property is currently developed with a one (1) story residential dwelling unit at the front of the property that would remain. The applicant is requesting approval to construct two (2) attached units (a duplex), with a three (3) car garage and three (3) open parking stalls, with enclosed garages on the first floor.. The proposed residential dwelling units wouid have 980 square feet of living area each with 600 square feet of garage area, totaling 2,560 square feet of new construction. The existing one-story residences provides 840 square feet of living area. The existing driveway would be utilized for access and extended to the rear of the properry. � r H9WORDFILE\PLANNMG\STAFFRPTcup2004-34112101ouisea¢doc - 1 - � - I The floor plans indicate that each dwelling unit would consist of a kitchen, living room, two (2) bedrooms, and one (1) bathroom. The elevations indicate the two-story structure would totai 23 feet in height from grade to the ridgeline, have a stucco e�erior, and a concrete tile roof. The proposed duplex would be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling, provided colors of the existing and new units are consistent. The Lynwood Municipal Code (LMC) permits eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre in the R-3 zone. That translates to one unit per 2, 420 square feet of gross property area. The property, which allows a maximum of three (3) units, is sufficient in size and shape to accommodate the existing unit and two (2) new units. The Lynwood Municipal Code requires that, at least, 35% of the subject site be landscaped, including front, side, and rear yards. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION ° 1. Consistency with the General Plan and Zonin�Ordinance The use, new residential units, is compatibie with the General Plan, and, the proposed off-street parking is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. New residential units are ailowable uses according to Chapter 25-4.5 of the Lynwood Municipai Code. 2. Site Suitability and Compatibility The site is developed with an existing residential dwelling unit. The site is suitable for these new uses and compatibility with surrounding residential uses in the area. FINDINGS REOUIRED FOR GRANTIfdG A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Pursuant to LMC Section 25-25.7, four findings must be made by the Planning Commission to grant approval of a conditional use permit. Following are the findings in bold and conclusions. � H:\WORDFILE\PLANNING\STAFFRPTcup20C4-33 I i?IO lauise av.doc — 2— I � a. The grenting of the proposed conditional use permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. The General Plan land use designation is Multi-Family Residential that is consistent with the subject properly that has an R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zoning. b. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purpose of the zone in which the site is located. The size of the property and proposed density meets standards set forth in the Lynwood Municipal Code (LMC). The project also complies with all development standards set forth in LMC Section 25-4.5 to include parking, setbacks, building separation, building height and lot coverage. c. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity provided auto repair service are not conducted on the site. Conditions of approval set forth in Resolution 3046 would ensure that the public health, safety and welfare is protected and reduce possible negative impacts to a level of insignificance. d. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter, except for approved variances. The proposed project is consistent with all requirements and standards in the LMC and no variances are necessary. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Development Services Department has determined that the proposed conditional use permit is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303(b), of the State Guidelines. � - H:\WORDFILE\PLANNWG\STAFFRPTcup2003-34I1?IOlouiseav.doc - 3 - I' RECOM M EN DATION Staff respectfully recommends that the Pianning Commission adopt Resolution 3046 and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-34. Attachments: 1. Project Profile 2. Location Map 3. Resolution 3046 4. Plans H:\WORDFILE\PLAIJNING\STAFFRPTICUp?003-3d 112101ouise ac.doc - 4 - PRO7ECT PROFILE Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-34 11210 Louise Avenue i. Source and Authoritv Lynwood Municipal Code (LMC) Section 25-4.2(a) sets forth permitted uses; LMC Section 25-4.5(a) sets forth development standards within the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones; and LMC Section 25-25.7 sets forth required findings for the Planning Commission to grent approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 2. Propertv Location and Size The subject property is located on Louise Avenue between Sanborn Avenue and Beechwood Avenue. The subject property is located on the east side of Louise Avenue. The property totals approximately 9,015 square feet in area. 3. Existing Land Uses The site is currently developed with an existing dwelling unit. Surrounding land uses are as follows: Site Developed North Multiple Family Residential South Multiple Family Residential West Will Rogers School East Multiple Family Residential 4. Land Use Desi4nation The subject property has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Multi-Family Residential that is consistent with the R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zoning. The General Plan and zoning designations in the vicinity are as follows: Site General Plan Zoninq North Multi-Family Residential R-3 South Multi-Family Residential R-3 West Multi-Family Residential R-3 East Multi-Family Residential R-3 H:\WORDFILE\PLANNMG\STAFFRPTcup2004-34112101ouiseav.doc . —.� — 5. Site Plan Review The Site Plan Review Committee has reviewed the project, recommended approval, and conditions are included in Resolution 3046. 6. Code Enforcement Historv Observation by Code Enforcement indicates the subject property must remain free of inoperable vehicles, discarded items from tenets or owner, and weed and debris. 7. Public Response None at the time of this report. H-\WORDFILE�PLANNMG\STAFFRP11cupID04-34 71210 touise av,doc ' - 6- Ci i Y OF LYNalUJOD ��4`I-e?� ,�. ` , o ' - �:, �n o .�'. , �,� , . i:R�, . Q � '=�� o , � '� 4 \ �, i � � � � N � qy 2 � ° � Q � \i � _ Q �" � � J` � ;�;o � � , co ° „��` c� e ., ^� A „ \ � �\� g ' r' i� a t _ � „� .r „ �; ° � ° , �: ; a � � ` J � l� � � �`l - : O � � r ` � Q C O a . (� � �.. °, i a`��eV �' / .� . C �_ _ �U % .� ' � ., � S��i r �"T�� 6' ::i°a ,, ` _ � e f m o°D% %/ �; �' /a X. ` 'O G' e j ' v( `_ O' ��,� i,vT.oi�e'u=. " a'- C N{y �/, r, cS;St a � o� t �� , �' �� `�%��, � 32 ,,. ° � : o^ ��-� ' o 5 r � . , �' i 9` ; � �:.. Y �/O ' .r�`s�,�; :;,;'' ,p�=) ' '� �<� ' �\ tb v rii � ��` . . \ � �� " ' O oa , t�, _� �n p � ; '� �'�.7 . �� o "' ' +� � f' & � _ s �^ � ''' ))) Y�9! !u �\� � .6� �i1 P "V��I n % `` 4. A'dinOJ.�y..H. � . � � e � 4 �" . . T� / \ � m m o � ,�0� . +, h q �J ' A _ 3 Sl . k � ' � � / ��,�,��- � � • � � 9 �'� �� , e p __ _ � ea@ \ q �� \ ` S v „�� p � 6 �.. / �& ` 2�,.. ,,d � ` ti tO�+ p ��, r` /3- .�' �30''" ; � �'� � d \_ o � S �, ^ae„ :d �'z " � 9� � n ��, �� u� ,/S! z�?� --��/j 3� nl; � a \ � �� o �/ �� O k �'�. _ ! .. �.�, 6 � ' 0 o i (1� \. b \� ; � d � �� ` e /' `A '� I � I Q o �`\ \ e � ° : e �Q � o ` , ,`, � � %7? . 2 r.„ a � i J s�� '' �_ ` � }"� , il, ,.� ; .. ` . ��\ . \� �' p � '�+`�� • 6 5 � � ` y ^� • /� O ��y! � : ^"�� . �'i _. `� ` V/ � ` \��. Cq E T` O�` � JY.i_ro.�Se_��N(n ��/oPa-J/ . , \S E � �_ 6 ' _ �A n: seo.i%v/ro.p! � � � h .� �tn: K .�`� �� k �/" `�` \o J `A �, . , a ;�� ;,, , 3 � d � 3J^ ,O v : . � N en. C'. lKi/a (nr.V,. � � S P3•nb' . 300' R�4DIl1S IV�A►F' N � ' � ' � LEGEND CASE NO. L.A. MAPPPING SERVICE �8 OWNERSHIP NO. DATE: 10 — 4— 04 8062 WHITMORE STREET ROSEMEAD,CA.91770- r OWNERSHIPHOOK SCALE: I = 200� (620) 280-8382 RESOLUTION 3046 A RESOLUTIOW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-34, PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX ON A LOT WITH AN EXISTING DWELLING, AT 11210 LOUISE AVENUE, IN THE R-3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE, CITY OF LYNWOOD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood did pursuant to law, conduct a public hearing on December 14, 2004, on a proposed Conditional Use Permit with respect to the above-identified properry; and WHEREAS, the Pianning Commission considered all oral and written testimony offered at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Department has determined that the , proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15303(b); Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows: A. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. The Land Use Designation is Mult-Family Residential that is consistent w�ith the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zoning of the subject properties. B. The location of the Conditional Use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the zone in which the site is located. Muitiple family residences are conditionally permitted uses in the R-3 zone subject to Lynwood Municipal Code Section 25-4.2(a). C. The location of the Conditional Use and the conditions under which it would be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Appropriate conditions of approval are � included to improve the property and protect adjacent properties. H:\N'ORDFILE�PLA�NIUGUtES054cso16t6 I 1210 louix.doc - 1 - D. The Conditional Use Permit will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The duplex will comply with all provisions of the Lynwood Municipal Code and meets or.. exceeds all development standards. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood, based upon the aforementioned findings and determinations, hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-34, provided the following conditions are observed and complied with at all times. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable regulations of the Lynwood Municipal Code, the California Building Code, and the Los Angeles County Fire Code. 2. Any proposed subsequent modification of the subject site or structures thereon shall be first reported to the Community Development Department, Planning Division for review. 3. The applicant or his/her representative shall sign a Statement of Acceptance stating that he/she has read, understands and agrees to all conditions of this resolution prior to the issuance of building permits. 4: This conditional use permit shall become null and void one hundred eighty (180) days after the use permitted has been abandoned, or ceases to be actively exercised, unless extended. 5. The applicant may request an e�ension of ninety (90) days provided the request for extension is submitted in writing to the Planning Division prior to expiration of the Conditional Use Permit. PLANNING DIVISION 6. The roof material shall consist of Spanish tile, concrete tile, ARC 80 Composition Asphalt or equivalent as reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. 7. Front, side and rear yard setback areas shall be permanently landscaped and such landscaping shall be permanently maintained in a neat and orderly condition. The front yard shall consist of installed roll turf grass only. ' H'\WORDFlLE�PLANNINGViE5054ewlOCb 112101ouiu.dx ^ _ G _ 8. The applicant shall submit a landscape and permanent irrigation plan to the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. A minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) of the gross lot areas shall be landscaped. 9. All driveways and parking areas shall be permanently paved with concrete and maintained in good condition. 10. Air conditioners, heating, coofing ventilation equipment, swimming pool pumps and heaters and all other mechanical devises shall be located within the rear yard. Such equipment shall be screened from surrounding properties and streets and so operated that they do not disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring residents, in accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance. 11. A solid and sight-obscuring fence, six feet (6� in height shall be provided and maintained around the perimeter of the parcel except for the front yard setback area. The applicant shall obtain required fence permits prior to installation. 12. Parking stalis shall remain clear and accessible for vehicle parking at all times. BUILDING AND �AFETY DIVISION 13. All construction shall meet or exceed the minimum building standards that are referenced in the following codes: The Uniform Building Code — 2001 edition; The Uniform Plumbing Code — 2001 edition; The Uniform Mechanical Code — 2001 edition; The Los Angeles Counry Fire Code 1999 edition; The National Electric Code — 2001 edition; Ail as amended by the California Building Code of 2001. In cases where the provisions of the California Building Code, the Lynwood MunicipaL Code, or the plans or specifications in these plans may conflict, the more restrictive provisions shall govern. HiWORDFlLEWLANNINGViE50S4em)Oa6 1 �2101ouiu.EOc -3- DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 14. Submit a grading plan prepared and signed by a registered Civil Engineer. Grading plan will be checked by the Department of Environmental Services. The property is located within the 100 year flood level zone per boundary map. Also, conform to all applicable codes per section 12 �/z of Lynwood Municipal Code. Building above flood level will require substantial amount of fill, therefore, suggest alternative medtods of design to minimumize amount of licable space at ground level. 15. Reconstruct damaged sidewalk along Louise Avenue. 16. Reconstruct damaged and substandard drive approach and required pavement along Louise Avenue. 17. Connect to public sewer. Each building shall be connected separately. Construct laterals as necessary. Minimum size required is six (6) inch. When connecting to an existing lateral, a City approved contractor shall verify the size of such lateral and shall provide proof of its integriry by providing video tape of the lateral to the Department of Environmental Services/Engineering Division. 18. Install one (1) 24" box street tree per APWA standards along Louise Avenue. 19. Regrade parkway and landscape with grass. 20. Provide and install one (1) marbelite street pole with light fixture, undergrounds services and conduits. Exact location shall be determined by the City Engineer. 21. Underground all new utilities. 22. A permit from the Engineering Division is required for all off-site improvements. 23. All required water meters, meter service changes and/or fire protection lines shall be installed by the developer. The work shali be performed by a licensed contractor hired by the developer. The contractor must obtain a permit from the Department of Environmental Services/Engineering Division prior to performing any work. Each building shall have its own water service/meter. H9WORDFILENLANNf�GVtES054emJD<b I I2101ouiu.EOC . -4- LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMEMT 24. The applicant shall contact the Los Angeles County Fire Department for plan check and permit requirements. Contact the Fire Prevention Division, Land Use Unit, 5823 Rickenbacker Road, Commerce, CA 90040-3027, (323) 890-4243. Section 3. A copy of Resolution 3046 and its conditions shall be delivered to the applicants. Section 4. Any violation of said conditions in this resolution may result in revocation or modification of the Conditional Use Permit by the issuing body at a regularly scheduled meeting. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14 day of December, 2004 by members of the Planning Commission, voting as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Jim Morton, Chairperson Lynwood Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Grant Taylor, Director Jennifer Mizrahi, Deputy City Attorney Development Services Department Planning Commission Counsel H:\WOR�FILE�PLAN,1'MG\RESOStrewl04fi 112101ouiu.poc � -5- � i��; �.:`� � i� iTEM N0. �-.----� . � � C6�S� N0. Co�� o. 2c�-�� DATE: December 14, 2004 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Grant Taylor, Director of Development Services BY: )onathan Colin, Business License Manager SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-35 11838 Wright Road Assessor Parcel Number 6188-009-012 APPLICANT: Jose Cortez — Owner GMD & DMB - Architect PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting approval to construct a second single-family residence, one-story in height, and an detached 4-car garage. The property is developed with a one-story residence at the front of the property that would remain and a single car garage that will be demolished. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the east side of Wright Road between Josephine Street and Lavinia Avenue. The parcel measures 60 ft in width by 160 feet in depth totaling 9,600 square feet in area. ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION The Lynwood Municipal Code (LMC) requires multiple family residentiai developments in R-3 zones to obtain approval of a conditional use permit. The project is consistent with both the General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential and the R-3 zoning for the property. The General Plan designation of Multi-family Residential allows 18 units per acre or 1 unit per 2,420 square feet of property. The parcel totals 9,600 square feet and could accommodate a.maximum of three (3) residences. The site plan indicates a minimum 10'-0" front yard setback with access provided by an 18'-4" foot driveway on the north property line. Landscaping exceeds the minimum thirty-five percent (35%) standard. � C:\Dacumm�ls and Scuings\jcolin\Dcsktopkup'_004-li.dw - 1 - The floor plan for the proposed structure indicates the residence will provide 936' square feet of livable area consisting of two bedrooms, one bathroom, kitchen, dining and living room. The four-car garage is detached and totais 735 square feet. The elevations indicate the one-story structure that totals 12'-10"" in height to the roof point and consists of stucco siding, and ARC 80/ Spanish Tile. Lynwood Municipal Code Section 25-25.7 sets forth four (4) findings the Planning Commission must make in order to grant a conditional use permit. Following are the findings in bold, and staff responses. A. The granting of the proposed conditional use permit will not adversety affect the comprehensive General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the subject property is Multi-Family Residences that is consistent with the R-3 zoning designation. The project is consistent with the General Plan policies and goals in the Land Use and Housing Elements. B. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purpose of the zone in which the site is located. The project would be consistent with the R-3 zone pertaining to density and would satisfy all development standards to include but not be limited to setbacks, building height, landscaping and parking. C. Yhat the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Approval of the conditional use permit is permitted pursuant to Section 25-4 of the Lynwood Municipal Code. The project would provide new housing and assist the City's fair share of regional housing (RHNA) set forth by the State. Conditions of approval set forth in Resolution 3047 would mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. D. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter, except for approved variances. The project would comply with all development standards set forth in the LMC. No variances are necessary. C:\DOCUmen�s anJ Se�tings�jcolin\DCSktopkup'ooa-35.doc - 2 - I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Department has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines pursuant to Sections 15303(a). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 3040 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-35. Attachments: 1. Project Profile , 2. Location Map 3. Vicinity Map 4. Resolution 3047 5. Plans (Site, floor and elevations) C:\UOCUmencc and Scuings\jcolin\Desktop\cup?004-35.doc - 3 - PRO7ECT PROFILE Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-35 11838 Wright Road Assessor Parcel Number 6188-009-012 1. Source and Authoritv Lynwood Municipal Code (LMC) Section 25-4.2(a) sets forth permitted uses in residential zones; LMC Section 25-4.5 sets forth development standards in residential zones and LMC Section 25-25.7 sets forth findings approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 2. Propertv Location and Size The subject property is located at 11838 Wright Road, on the east side of Wright Road between Josephine Street and Lavinia Avenue, Assessor Parcel Number 6188-009-012, in the R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zone. The property measures 9,600 square feet and is developed with a 874 square foot residence. At present, . there is an existing one-story residence that will not be demolished and a currently existing detached one-car that tivill be remaved. 3. Existinq Land Uses Site Develoqed North: Transportation South: Single and Multi-Family Residential West: Single and Multi-Family Residential East: Single and Multi-Family Residential 4. Land Use Designation The subject parcel has a General Plan Designation of Multi-Family Residential that is consistent with the R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zoning. The adjacent properties Generai Plan and Zoning designations are as follows: C:\DOCUmcnlsandSeuings\jcoiin\DcsA�op�cup2004J5.doc - 4 - Site General Plan Zonin4 North: Transportation No Zone South: Multi-Family Residential R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) West: Multi-Family Residential R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) East: Multi-Family Residential R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) 5. Site Plan Review The Site Plan Review Committee has reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to conditions of approval set forth in Resolution 3047. 6. Code Enforcement Historv No code enforcement case to date. 7. Public Res�onse None of record at the time of this report. C:�DocumenLSandSeuings\jrolin�Desklop\cup?OO�JS.doc - 5 - , , _, _ . ; . Si �5� � �. � � � -- '.'_ R r .0 � '—' � �_ n � Jfu._ r 14 y"' u u . _ . Q .." . � � O ' sne � . I ' Wg i 'r.:. . ._;�- . - x '� � � �,� + 6 ' p� p � z �� o �, a l r__. „< < 56 _, 1 I8�' o z o �•-, K,�. . �; 'i I5 16 � l� �� Pi� . .WaOL I.N . � b _ � r� N / � � � II .J./l�]a L y , /HIGNi .....R� WIf, N �--� no. R WIL �J � AVE. � � .., p o ,,,, C] - ..., � .� . . . , o °� � o � � � � ..� p < < � I� � � Q oo .�, �. �n �� ..,� i y 0 0 � � o_ (q� � � .',� �� r �� C � � ^�� ° �:'I'Fa � I2� 126 O N N � N� � •p1° ° , I 107 106 " 109 I I O i I I, � 112 — �--- p ' iu . 1 '� � s � ^ ±� �� I � . 10 0 — . _.— C 1 � � � 9 �`- � � � � F '�J� � ` � Ip' '• �� 1�V1'' � JI !/ I) Q Q � � ,,..,, �oi ioz ioa �os io6 O � O �..� S � 4 • � � 113 114 115 N�� '°�• � si��3 '� � ll .!z ; l39 z$ o .� ' j I °'.. , 91 I . I �' I. J � b)X �� M � �' Sn � TRACT ND 52b1 �' � � e � WR1�19T RDB r ao � M81231$3-64,_ « =^ ke � ,� � ffi � Ha 3 � '� � �� ' 43 4z � a+ e 3 U 0 � � � � � . � � . � 4 .: �0� O � � O sO . �. S . ; ee g s. �tm� aa+�er ��*A 2� � �'°' L � m. � � � aK ` _ " „ � 3R �o. • � 61�� I q , � 31 � zi � � d 7 � � `' fs O8 O � �� QQ � O `T.o_ . . - 7 —� 'f � � 74 j _ tg a � �° � ta � �t � . � 0 `� � . y �� o� �m„eF' �� 4 "R q g Q� 9 x � M .' .. ��m ��xv �M�y �� ,� �,� ' q � � .� �,� , . _ �— _. - . � ,._ : . � t �-.. I � i '� -� `�..,� _ � 1 �_ � � �•� �---�� I �Np ! 3g � r '.-. f °' Eit)csh'ric �fro�.j ^"3 g W � m m -.,-.."`._..`_'�� y toC�,A e� 3 r Co f Gerh Mrr,'O `f f ��., ° O ° g � � p „. "\ys • i- .,�+ f 'a�-hqV ' / � � ' �jn o�_ � m—r-- � '"*qyp. f . �' . cd ,� 1 ''�K„ � y F� .Fj P1� . � » � 9 47 -+._� 7+.�VC' ^'�..�-..,, � � ) / • M' � (� D'�� ;v� _'�S� 9a1 '• � �"-�o�� *ff L � ��t�ri�� .' f� '�, 3 �p 1 0 !1 r ` �. F,* ; � � y l t� '... �''�he�Cr'�°e�tVe "^-,. i F -...„ ., �� i� �� _ ; r `�-._ e q _ -- "•--- - --'.,Co ok � g, p .;� 4.44�,q��.,. ,� � -�/ '�� . '; � Cr e q �e . _ � ; w _. ,--�. � ..�, ; , a any� �Gy. - � r�' ; � yA�� , � �<. ° anV aWtl S� 7' l O o � Q fJ ,�� `�.,. _ o e� f �J�r� s � , : / j-._ � � �__ ? In Ic �,i t S g• � ' . � ' ., � ' `!St � t t' - -", w , . � �,� ;.' -_.. r � t an� l��e�� S o ��r f t �� t!d jh A �. �� '� � t 'c� ��. m 1 t I' ic �•�r '� f O� . RtlC,t� �` -., c .2� � ° '�3 r" �- - r" �1"^ e ° � { a ?,�ysWeril!IJ�S l� � ti : ,.� �`.' ��$�hi �"`" � - «. n � � ` '�j ".��f S l�� t ,s� _� uo R!`J i-.�e ,' d\ ...� A ,. aq� o�"�. ..,{,, t t „� f; i , � ,. � t_Halo '�� r � _ ?' ' `-�..d„' �,"'^w, . � � �htl ��t � � `^,.-. � �l „ y a is �.,,_ ��i �'^�'" / i eh ,,S •'�� i s7�e�V'�'-� alloucev p a�i -° y ' """f„' Po ' " .� � � ,"' "�t _--�,,' �t�'#- �, 4d . c L' �.�.� j 1G p�A, �� ,�Y-� ., , ---.. , .y ,. ,.� .� 4 } .Cd ��t �-. �� ;X7 ,� Y I �I nr ` �' F 'e -f � °�-._ �"� -„ y � - � i ' J ' _ z ^ V t F. � :.,. ,�. _ * a° t `� ia � t �. } d r �M.. � a �` �`� +N 1 �a ��- �c , 1 �v� ,,_;� ti,,�� .�10,�. � ; 3 � x �, , , h � � r -•..� . 1 A�. a ",. ��-J y tn Itn , tn..._ -,� � "f .. j' 'h�, t r i " r` "i--..... � A r � . �, 9� � , . 1.b�+ 01 I ". 4 ; ; � . � 1 �, .' � Pnd�ipSRVe � �•:::r A:�� ., otirS�� . � � ��' `�`- ~+~� � "+.. �4' ] � r i '^e , \ � f. - � ��,� � -WV.�.�, r� ;y -. N ^ � � . Ll /�� '� y",{ - �U. , � � � y � ! � . }� ' .. y �"Va �'�'�..� � ��.'" -^+-�"" � �� "` •.^+. � .. � �Ur ,, : < a � ,- c_7 y ,...,. ar D �l/y� ,�� r ^'-`--..,.,..-..-__ l a � � y < '� j' rc .. 1i �'�. � .. � � � ` �� -` � ` . .�..a ; �� N � _ ;��. � . _, � NQ po � n _ , Raroho Caaimo Oi � ` ° �� N f � .� � a�� T � N � 0�d t �.. D o o � .� ;� f/1� i � � ' '�.� ;, O � ' t� �3! ( $f/�+ ' i i . 1 i r !`1� � O r � �.�.,.3, �, tc o�'�' p R'a t/' � l{ . . � I x 0 Ctic - 2 � i� 1�i+i `{ r � � c nanl-• ��1_ ' " -� _� ,- .� � a J s �� Y ' .a � 1_ d'� i onybt�u� rp �'i, '� a i i�I�u � t� ` W , 'D �y !`r / t.` ::. .... a ...;, ' i.'a i��:� � � !i , i � C) � �c� td�tioFlv� --• " n ii M t S �,� j�,� . � n n � �� m � o� I ,. � � P�nit5ylVdniU <i � � .. � �o l�,, i � � f _ -__.,. _. . W f ` i� ,� '� t� .�S . ;9 h OO c G �- -,r i t � ! N �� o . � �� JcJ ' P � � ( . C � �N� '1A\f 4.lUQl{4� �, : C I ¢ � t„i G r .,�.,....�nyao�'II. � �ra�� c.: . ��yi`r�n,..000 �. . t i... � .+.-� i � . r—o......•-a-�....w.. �.�.�.�.........v-w �..._ �' .-r � � � Q RESOLUTION NO. 3047 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-35, TO CONSTRUCT ONE DETACHED RESIDENCE, ONE-STORY IN HEIGHT AND ONE (1) DETACHED FOUR-CAR GARAGE, LOCATED AT 11838 WRIGHT ROAD, IN THE R-3 (MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 61E8-009-012, CITY OF LYNWOOD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the Lynwood Planning Commission, pursuant to law, on December 14, 2004 conducted a public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-35; and WHEREAS, the Lynwood Pianning Commission considered all oral and written testimony offered at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Department has determined that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Qualify Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(a), therefore; Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood hereby finds and determines as follows: ' A. The granting of the proposed conditional use permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. The zoning is R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) and is consistent with the General Plan designation of Muiti- Family Residential. B. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the zone in which the site in located. The subject property is located in the R-3 zone and is sufficient in size and shape to accommodate three (3) residences and satisfy all applicable development standards. C. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or C.\DOCUmcn�sandSmings\jcolin\MyDOCUrtrms\CUPx4nolOJ].doc � improvements in the vicinity. Conditions of approval have been included in the project pursuant to Resolution 3047 to mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. D. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the appiicable provisions of Chapter 25 of the Lynwood Municipal Code except for approved variances. The project will comply with all development standards set forth in LMC Sedion Z5-4. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-35, subject to all conditions, restrictions and limitations set forth as follows: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1. 7he conditional use must be acted upon within 180 days of approval. The Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void 180 days from the date of approval if not acted on within this period. One extension of 90 days may be granted if the extension is requested in writing prior to the end of the valid period, at the discretion of the Development Services Department. 2. The project shall comply with all regulations and standards set forth in the Lynwood Municipal Code, the California euilding Code, the Los Angeles County Fire Code and all other City Departments. 3. The project shall be developed in accordance with plans approved by the Lynwood Planning Commission and on file in the Development Services Department, Planning Division. 4. Any proposed subsequent modification of the subject site or structures thereon, shall be first reported to the Development Services Department, Planning Division, for review of said modifications. 5. The property owner shall sign a Statement of Acceptance stating that he/she has read, understands, and agrees to all conditions of this resolution prior to issuance of building permits. C:\Documcros and Snvings�jcalinUty Docurtrnu�NPs4aol0a].doc .1 6. Conditions of approval shall be printed on plans prior to submission to the Building and Safety Division for plan check. PLANNING DIVISION . 7. The project shall provide a 4-car garage. Such garage shall remain unobstructed and available for vehicle parking at all times. 8. All driveways shall be permanenfly paved, maintained and remain clear and accessible for vehicle access at all times. 9. Landscaped areas shall consist of a minimum of thirty-five (35%) percent of the gross lot area. The required front, rear, and side yards shall be landscaped and shall consist predominately of plant materials except for necessary walks, drives and fences. Landscaping and permanent irrigation systems shall be installed in the front yard setback area in accordance with detailed plans to be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. A six (6') foot high solid and sight-obscuring fence shali be installed around the perimeter of the property, except within the twenry-foot (20') front yard setback area. Front yard fences shall not exceed four feet (4') in height and may be constructed of wrought iron or wrought iron with block pilasters. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $2.24 per square foot to,the Lynwood Unified School.District. 12. Acoustical construction materials shall be used throughout the units to mitigate exterior noise to the standards and satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division. 13. The roof shall be constructed with a non-reflective material of concrete tile, Spanish tile, ARC 80 or equivalent subject to review by the Planning Commission. _ 14. Air conditioners, heating, cooling ventilation equipment, swimming pool pumps and heaters and all other mechanical devices shall be located within the rear yard or side yards. Such equipment shall be screened from surrounding properties and streets and operated so that they do not disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring residents, in accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance. 15. The property owner shall maintain a pro-active approach to the elimination of graffiti from the structures, fences and accessory buildings, on a daily basis. Graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. C9DocumcmxandSaiings\jcolin�MyDOCUmcros\NPs\msa30a].do< 3 16. New structures shall consist of colors reviewed and approved by the Development Services, Planning Division. ENVYRONMENTAL SERVICES/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 17. Submit a grading plan prepared and signed by a registered Civil Engineer. Grading plan will be checked by the Department of Environmental Services. No building permits will be issued prior to the approvai of grading plan by the City Engineer. 18. Reconstruct damaged sidewalk along Wright Road. 19. Connect to public sewer. Each building shall be connected separately. Construct laterals as necessary. Minimum size required is six inches (6"). When connecting to an existing lateral, a City approved contractor shall verify the size of such lateral and shall provide proof of its integrity by providing a video tape of the lateral to the Department of Environmentaf Services/Engineering Division. 20. Upgrade existing street metal pole with light fixture, underground services and conduits. Exact location shall be determined by the City Engineer. 21. Underground all new utilities. 22. A permit from the Engineering Division is required for all ofF-site improvements. 23. All required water meters, meter service changes and/or fire protection lines shall be installed by the developer. The work shall be performed by a licensed contractor hired by the developer. The contractor must obtain a permit from the Public Works/Engineering Division prior to performing any work. Each building shall have its own water meter. Each building shaii have its own water service/meter. 24. Install one (1) 24" box street tree(s) per APWA standards along Wright Road. Species shall be determined by Environmental Services. A permit to install the trees is required by the Engineering Division. The exact location of the trees will be determined at the time the permit is issued. 25. Regrade parkway and landscape with grass. c�ooc�mem:a�as�n;�gsycoi��M.�ooc�mcm:�wr:eno�oa�.aoc 4 . . BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION 26. All construction shall meet or exceed the minimum building standards that are referenced in the following codes. � The Uniform Building Code - 2001 edition; : The Uniform Plumbing Code - 2001 edition; ➢ The Uniform Mechanical Code - 2001 edition > The Los Angeles Counry Fire Code — 1999 edition; � The National Electric Code — 2001 edition; All as amen�ed by the California Building Code of 2001. In cases where the provisions of the California Building Code, the City of Lynwood Municipal Code, or the plans or specifications in these plans may conflict, the more 0 restrictive provisions shall govern. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 27. The applicant shali comply with all conditions set forth by the Los Angeles County Fire Department for this appiication. Please contact the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Land Development Unit, Fire Prevention Division, 5823 Rickenbacker Road; Commerce, CA 90040-3027, (323) 890-4243. Section 3. A copy of Resolution 3047 shall be delivered to the applicant. C�Documcnuand5cuingsycolinVNyDocumrnu�CUPs4cso)OJ].dw 5 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14 day of December, 2004, by members of the Lynwood Planning Commission, voting as follows: AYES: NOESe ABSENT: ABSTAIN: . Jim Morton, Chairman Lynwood Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Grant Taylor, Director Jennifer Mizrahi, Deputy City Attorney Development Services Department Planning Commission Counsel CiDOCUmcnlsand5cuings\jcalinUlyDOCUmcnts�CUPStraoJOC]dw 6 �1G��A �TEM N0. d� CAS� �0. � . 2 -.3� DATE: December 14, 2004 TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Grant Taylor, Director of Development Services BY� Art Bafield, Planning Associate SUB)ECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-36 11276 Duncan Avenue APPLICANT: Fernando Lopez — Owner / Edgar Cortes — Architect PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct two (2) attached residences (duplex), two stories in height with six (6) parking stalls provided by an existing two-car garage, a carport and three (3) new open parking stalis on property located at 11276 Duncan Avenue in the R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zone. PRO]ECT CHARACTERISTICS The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Duncan Avenue and Sanborn Avenue, in the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zone. The parcel has 60 feet of street frontage and 164 feet in depth, totaling 9,811 square feet in area. , _ The applicant is requesting approval to construct two (2) attached units (a duplex) with an existing 2-car garage, a carport and three (3) new open parking stalls. The proposed residential dwelling units would consist of 1,477.40 square feet of living area in the second Floor unit and 1,385 square feet of living area in the first floor unit, totaling 2,862.8 square feet of new construction. The two (2) existing driveways wouid be utilized for vehicle access. The floor plans indicate that each dwelling unit would consist of a kitchen, living room, three (3) bedrooms, and two (2) bathrooms. HdWORDFILE\P LANNMG\STAFFRP"f�cup?OOd-3611276duncan.doc _ 1 _ The elevations indicate the two-story structure would total 25'-7" in height, have a stucco e�erior, and an ARC 80 composition asphalt roof. The proposed duplex would be architecturally compatible with the existing dwellirrg, provided colors of the existing and new units are consistent. The Lynwood Municipal Code (LMC) permits eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre in the R-3 zone. That translates to one unit per 2, 420 square feet of gross property area. The property, which allows a maximum of three (3) units, is sufficient in size and shape to accommodate the existing unit and two (2) new units. The Lynwood Municipal Code requires that, at least, 35% of the subject site be landscaped, including front, side, and rear yards. � . ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 1. Consistencv with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The use, new residential units, is compatible with the Generai Plan, and, the proposed off-street parking is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. New residential units are allowable uses according to Chapter 25-4.5 of the Lynwood Municipal Code. 2. Site Suitability and Comoatibil� The site is developed with an existing residential dwelling unit. The site is suitable for these new uses and compatibility with residential uses in the area. FINDINGS REOUIRED FOR GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Pursuant to LMC Section 25-25.7, four findings must be made by the Pianning Commission to grant approval of a conditional use permit. Following are the findings in bold and conclusions. a. The granting of the proposed conditional use permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. The General Plan land use designation is Multi-Family Residential that is consistent with the subject property that has an R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zoning. � H:\WOR DFILE\PLANNING\STAFFAPT1cup?004-361IZ76duncan.doc _ 2 . b. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purpose of the zone in which the site islocated. • The size of the property and proposed densiry meets standards set forth in the Lynwood Municipal Code (LMC). The project also complies with all development standards set forth in LMC Section 25-4.5 to include parking, setbacks, building separation, building height and lot coverage. c. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be opereted or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity provided auto repair service are not conducted on the site. � Conditions of approval set forth in Resolution 3046 would ensure that the public health, safety and welfare is protected and reduce possible negative impacts to a leve� of insignificance. , d. That the proposed conditional. use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter, except for approved variances. The proposed project is consistent with all requirements and standards in the LMC and no variances are necessary, ENVYRONIWElVTAL ASSESSMENT The Development Services Department has determined that the proposed conditional use permit is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303(b), of the State Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Staff respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 3048 and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-36. Attachments: 1. Project Profile 2. iocation Map 3. Resolution 3048 4. Plans H:\W ORDFILE\PLANNINGISTAFFRP7lcu�r20043611276duncan.doc _ 3 _ PRO�ECT PROFILE Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-36 11276 Duncan Avenue 1. Source and Authoritv Lynwood Municipal Code (LMC) Section 25-4.2(a) sets forth permitted uses; LMC Section 25-4.5(a) sets forth development standards within the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones; and LMC Section 25-25.7 sets forth required findings for the Planning Commission to grant approval of a Conditional Use Permit. • 2. Pro�ertv location and Size The subject property is located on Louise Avenue between Sanborn Avenue and Beechwood Avenue. The subject properly is located on the east side of Louise Avenue. The property totals approximately 9,811 square feet in area. 3. Existina Land Uses The site is currently developed with an existing dwelling unit. Surrounding land uses are as follows: Site Develo�ed North Multiple Family Residential South Multiple Family Residential West Multiple Family Residential East Multiple Family Residential 4. Land Use Desianation The subject property has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Multi-Family Residential, and, currently zoned R-3 (Multi-Family Residential), therefore, � consistent with the adjoining properties. The General Plan and zoning designations are as follows: . H:\WORDFILE\PLANNWG\STAFFAPTCUp?004dG 11276duncan.doc _ 4 _ Site General Plan Zonina North Multi-Family Residential R-3 South Multi-Family Residential R-3 West Multi-Family Residential R-3 East Multi-Family Residential R-3 5. Site Plan Review The Site Plan Review Committee has reviewed the project, recommended approval, and conditions are included in Resolution 3048. 6. Code Enforcement Historv Observation by Code Enforcement indicates the subject property must remain free of inoperable vehicles, discarded items from tenets or owner, and weed and debris. 7. Public Resuonse None at the time of the completion of this report. H :\ W ORDFILE\PLANNMG\STAFFRPT1cup2004-3611276duncan.doc _ 5 _ �i :;; � __ �� i � .. , '''�„��° �`'��i��.__ � .C_---� ' fi / ," - ' --�.. ` \`��-�_- , . . ' �� _ \\�� •c ^ rn n ', _ �.. - _,, \ \\ ��\�i� __, � .Ei r> -' ''!'� . . . � F �r � � � � � � / \ �- it;>.•: " • ' . i �. .• tr / �I�1��•,�l M: \ ' � (i \l l. . h , T-" - � .. t / � _ � / �� O � , �l �� l- � � ;� �+ � �' 1 � /1�� J � , /� r � l. � i�' � i i� � 1 � � ,:G, ,, l�;' ;' � � ; - ��_ , , . 1 , , � , ; ��. J , , ( l: , ,:. �7 ° � �J r' , , �l - � ,% � _ � � ; ; °'` G=a �, �, , ,. ' I �.�_ .. �, _. � a - ; �, , � _ ��- � � O ' O' l�� o in -� r r i, �' E . O .. . �� .� •0 -_ � � ,a� i � , � �� . � � r � l( ,�_i' r- ;. : S S � �� rc ' � � � . W O . 'e, > �� / r / r r a I � s � �� . J i � � � " � � O8 , g �� . l ra /r�^ / � �')�., Q � ` O i V � r . . � / ,� � Z O W . _ l iM1��, � � -� -t.. � in �J � � W Q �� N O `;;� 8 ,' �_ � ' : �" I ' '�� O ¢ c � � � � �, � � ( ` ' _ ^ �",;: � � " '`° •; � � / �,;:;\'`°,; Z 0 O' �.a ,�a f �+' � �,.fl � O �' / !.` lJ, (�� tL Q O o 0;� . -� i,� � p ,� i N � � J /' z v Z �� I � �i �' � � �_a r�� \/ ` �: .. ✓ t^ ;'rJ'!N'}� 2 ]!' `l � •� :� r � ` - r � � N a�.� � ' � � .P� � u /, / 3 a C7 � 0 } p � ea� t � �''�� i .� . A 9 i l:�h 5 C? / � �� V f0 J t- , �r� i � i - � �� i ��h iO '1i7. F �,� .� � /�� / e Fi � _ W r W • � fJ i ' r ' ' O'+:o ' • ' � ��' ' (' l � ` ~ l � � fV J .i. O � i . - � � n } S \/ , a/ (:'. � i�i . a�- Q i 1'r Ji .' �� l?J ^�' '';�Df/ \ r�J . �: O U �R�of , r � �� Cl 4i� - � � �, c' / �qN � l 2�k (j � �, �� , �� ; ; O � .. - , � �,, ,� , ,_ � [L a / . i �"i O � _ i m " ; . , ; ,:1�" �� ti , q� i i i� l m I , n ^° /, ny e� ry r(� �, . Jr 1/ p I c . � / e i , � v �,, . � . N 1 , �'�� :• � . i a �._, „ _ • i: i �. C� � � ''"� � ui a t� e � i��k 7 � . � � � , � � � N i . _ s% ry '�iea ?� .Zj CI / � m ) /' ' �..0 / h l, l7 � Y � � I „_ � ' ) e � as :eo ; xi � i � � .. ' � � j v ! o�/ ��\ \ / � e � � � , Alrt- F 'f (U � zaei O � . NC t �� :l� i r 1-.\ � � � � ��l r� � fa % .. ` , > p i a i r7 . f in. ` ,._ �n � � ��'/. �Ai �l �� - .i _ _ iu � a,. r p • ,. . i '.+/ P i.� � � crr � �> e' ' ° � //� LL f � „ , ./�/� / / �/�•, o / i l n . � U � .5 � �� r : � ' • i�/ � � s �� S , ., \�v./`` . /,.l,.o � � ��1� '� / t 1 , « � . W . J � � � Fl ` i ", .. � ; ��\ I ., I �' a . � j ' w2 � - ' ' a % � ' . � ' � � ,.� / � .e�-�[ i _ ; Z t � � r+ i i / � O � 4 / I'b_ l �� ♦ � / \ / p / , .,/ � � ,� � "� �� . 1nrGr r�u �ean i � �% � ' � �� z. (( i �� s � � R U m � uem-o.-v ., r� ' � � � ^ " - � �.� oi�t e W . ..�. � � .. � � } '� � �+�e .�a a. �1 R � „ m , I x:o ' / / �' ..\ � / � / a'� / �� `F` / I d l� r � R n a , � �'/ �zaor /. ', 1,' �� V � � � ''"" J � l a,i:• -� � �` l ' �� :.r � �i r � � ' �w�n � m�rm u. L/q I / �S n \ x�p .� � Y / . plN �! �a� �, �. / �� / '' � >„ _ , , ^�. i � � / — \:. ;/ �: �; , i . . , ,, .'�_, l `, ,. �rc,, � RESOLUTION 3048 A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-36, PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX ON A LOT WITH AN EXYSTIING DWELLING, AT 11276 DUNCAN AVENUE, IN THE R-3 (MULTYPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE, CITY OF LYNWOOD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood did pursuant to law, conducted a public hearing on December 14, 2004, on a proposed Conditional Use Permit with respect to the above-identified property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all oral and written testimony offered at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Department has determined that the proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Qualiry Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15303(b); Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood hereby finds and determines as follows: A. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. The Land Use Designation is Mult-Family Residential that is consistent with the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zoning of the subject properties. B. The location of the Conditional Use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the zone in which the site is located. Multiple family residences are conditionally permitted uses in the R-3 zone subject to Lynwood Municipal Code Section 25-4.2(a). C. The location of the Conditional Use and the conditions under which it would be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the pubiic health, safety, or welfare, or materiatly injurious to properties or improvements in the viciniry. Appropriate conditions of approval are included to improve the property and protect adjacent properties. H \WORDFILE�PLANNI4GVtE50S4em30a8 I I?)6 dunwn.doc ' - l - D. The Conditional Use Permit will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The duplex will comply with all provisions of the Lynwood Municipal Code and meets or exceeds all development standards. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood, based upon the aforementioned findings and determinations, hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-36, provided the following conditions are observed and complied with at all times. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMEN� 1. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable regulations of the Lynwood Municipal Code, the California Building Code, and the Los Angeles County Fire Code. 2. Any proposed subsequent modification of the subject site or structures thereon shall be first reported to the Community Development Department, Planning Division for review. 3. The applicant or his/her representative shall sign a Statement of Acceptance stating that he/she has read, understands and agrees to all conditions of this resolution prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. This conditional use permit shall become null and void one hundred. eighty (180) days after the use permitted has been abandoned, or ceases to be actively exercised, unless e�ended. 5. The applicant may request an extension of ninety (90) days provided the request for extension is submitted in writing to the Planning Division prior to expiration of the Conditional Use Permit. PLANNING DIVISION 6. The roof material shall consist of Spanish tile, concrete tile, ARC 80 Composition .. Asphalt or equivalent as reviewed and approved by the Pianning Division. 7. Front, side and rear yard setback areas shall be permanently landscaped and such landscaping shall be permanently maintained in a neat and orderly condition. The front yard shall consist of installed roll turf grass only. H'.\WORDFlLE�PLA.�'SISG�RES054csoS6t8 11?'!ti duncan4oc � _2_ 8. The applicant shall submit a landscaping and permanent irrigation plan to the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. A minimum of thirty-five percent (35°/o) of the gross lot areas shail be landscaped. 9. All driveways and parking areas shall be permanently paved with concrete and maintained in good condition. 10. Air conditioners, heating, cooling ventilation equipment, swimming pool pumps and heaters and all other mechanical devises shall be located within the rear yard. Such equipment shall be screened from surrounding properties and streets and so operated that they do not disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring residents, in accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance. 11. A solid block wall fence, six feet (6� in height shall be installed and maintained around the perimeter of the parcel except for the front yard setback area. The applicant shall obtain required fence permits prior to installation. 12. Parking stalls shall remain clear and accessible for vehicle parking at all times. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION 13. All construction shall meet or exceed the minimum building standards that are referenced in the following codes: The Uniform Building Code — 2001 edition; The Uniform Plumbing Code — 2001 edition; The Uniform Mechanical Code — Z001 edition; " The Los Angeles County Fire Code 1999 edition; The National Electric Code — 2001 edition; All as amended by the California Building Code of 2001. In cases where the provisions of the California Building Code, the Lynwood Municipal Code, or the plans or specifications in these plans may conflict, the more restrictive provisions shall govern. H:\N'ORDFILEW LANNMG�RES054em10a8 113)6 dunan doc -3- DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 14. Dedicate required property and corner cut off at the northeast corner of Duncan Avenue and Sanborn Avenue to accommodate a twenry-five foot (25� radius and curb ramp. 15. Submit a grading plan prepared and signed by a registered Civil Engineer. Grading plan will be checked by the Department of Environmental Services. No building permits will be issued prior to the approval of the grading pian by the , City Engineer. 16. Reconstruct damaged sidewalk along Duncan Avenue. 17. Reconstruct new drive approach per APWA standards. 18. Remove existing curb return and reconstruct with twenty-five foot (25� radius curb. Construct one (1) wheelchair ramp at the northeast corner of Duncan Avenue and Sanborn Avenue. Relocate existing street light pole if needed. 19. Connect to public sewer. Each building shail be connected separately. Construct laterals as necessary. Minimum size required is six (6) inch. When connecting to an existing lateral, a City approved contractor shall verify the size of such lateral and shall provide proof of its integrity by providing video tape of the lateral to the Department of Environmental Services/Engineering Division. 20. Root prune one (1) existing street tree and install root barriers at Duncan Avenue. 21. Regrade parkway and landscape with grass. 22. Underground all new utilities. 23. A permit from the Engineering Division is required for all off-site improvements. 24. All required water meters, meter service changes and/or fire protection lines shall be installed by the developer. The work shall be performed by a licensed contractor hired by the developer. The contractor must obtain a permit from the Department of Environmental Services/Engineering Division prior to performing any work. Each building shall have its own water service/meter. N�,\WORDFILE�PLANNIn4VtE5054em10aB IlPb duncanEOc -4- LOS ANGELES COUNTY FYRE DEPARTMENT 25. The applicant shall contact the Los Angeles County Fire Department for plan , check and permit requirements. Contact the Fire Prevention Division, Land Use Upit, 5823 Rickenbacker Road, Commerce, CA 90040-3027, (323) 890-4243. Section 3. A copy of Resolution 3048 and its conditions shall be delivered to the applicants. Section 4. . Any violation of said conditions in this resolution may result in revocation or modification of the Gonditional Use Permit by the issuing body at a regularly scheduled meeting. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14 day of December, 2004 by members of the Planning Commission, voting as follows , ' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ` ABSTAIN: Jim Morton, Chairperson . Lynwood Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Grant Taylor, Director Jennifer Mizrahi, Deputy City Attomey Development Services Department Planning Commission Counsel � ' N:\WORDFILE�PLAIJNING�RESOS4eso30481¢)fi0unwn.doc ' _ S � I � �!'��1��i� �T�� NJ . �L� ' . . . . .. . - G/ �� 1 ��. �� •�.--�� DATE: December 14, 2004 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Grant Taylor, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: Conditionaf Use Permit No. 2004-37 11215 Long Beach Boulevard, Building B-5, Unit #1001 The applicant has requested to withdraw the item. Background Request to develop and operate a multi-tenant jewelry retail center within a 4,650 square foot tenant area to include sixty-three retail tenant spaces ranging in size from 34 to 74 square feet. Building B-5 totals 12,000 square feet and is located immediately adjacent to and north of the Food 4 Less Store. The proposed project is located within the Plaza Mexico Shopping Center in the CB-1 (Controlied Business) zone. Staff determined that the parking requirements and development standards were not satisfied and cannot support the item. Specifically, the project is inconsistent with Lynwood Municipal Code Sections 25-33 (parking) and 25-35 c, d, j, q, r, and u(multiple � tenant retail centers). � � Recommendation j t Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the applicanYs request to � withdraw the item. � : , I i � I • � i ; H:\WORDFILEIPLANNING\STAFFRP"I�cup?00337 withdraw�.dce 1 _ � I �� ?A I � E M N 0. _L.�.__......�.. C�SE N0. I�b. t� -�Z �� DATE: December 14, 2004 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Grant Taylor, Director of Development Services SUB]ECT: 2oning Ordinance Amendment No. 2004-02 Update Lynwood Municipal Code, Chapter 25 PROPOSAL For the Planning Commission to review, discuss, revise and direct to staff to impiement revisions and bring back an updated Draft Zoning Ordinance for consideration at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commissian on January 11, 2005. I BACKGROUND I � The Ciry Council adopted a major update to the Lynwood General Plan on September 9, j 2003. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25 of the Lynwood Municipal Code has not undergone a major update in years. The current zoning code is outdated and inconsistent I with the updated General Plan. � DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS � The purpose of drafting a new comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is to implement the I goals and policies of the General Plan Update of September 9 2003. A current zoning j ordinance would allow staff to perform routine updating of the zoning ordinance, remove I existing inconsistencies, and address specific concerns. ! The new General Plan calls for the creation of four (4) new zoning districts (Public Facility, ;� Open Space, Specific Plan Area and Civic Center Overlay). The new zoning code will be i well organized, remove inconsistencies, add the new zoning designations and implement � goals and policies of the up�ated General Plan. ; Environmental review and documentation has been prepared consisting of an Initial � Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. , ! i i H:\WURDFILE�PLAIJNING\STAFFRPTanemomningcodeconsul�an�.4-6-0d.doc 1 . _ � i I ! The General Plan is the State mandated document that sets forth the proposed zoning, development, goals and policies for land use for the nezt twenty (20) years. The zoning ordinance is the tool that implements standards set forth in the Genecal Plan. Michael Wagner was the consultant who performed the General Plan Update and . - associated Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Wagner has the expertise and Ciry of Lynwood background knowledge to draft the new zoning ordinance. Please bring your Draft Zoning Ordinances to the meeting. • RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the drat zoning code, identify ` revisions and continue the item to the next regular meeting. Staff will bring back a clean revised zoning code for consideration. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Notice of Determination � Negative Declaration Initial Study Draft Zoning Code H \WORDFILENLAIJIVING\STAFFRPNnemoioningcodeconsuhant 4-6-04.doc Z ORDINANCE NO. _ A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN AMENDED ZONING CODE, AND APPROVING THE ACCOMPANYING INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, Section 65800 et. seq. of the Calrfornia Government Code authorizes cities and counties to prepare Zoning Code regulations; and whereas, the City of Lynwood adopted a prior Zoning Code with succeeding amendments; and WHEREAS, the City of Lynwood desires to update its Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, on , 2005 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearings to receive orai and written testimony relative to the Amended Zoning Code and Draft Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on , 2005 the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised public hearings to receive oral and written testimony relative to the Amended Zoning Code, and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination relative to the Amended Zoning Code and the Negative Declaration � i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lynwood as i follows: Section 1. The City Council HEREBY FINDS and DETERMINES, after reviewing and ' considering the information in the Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for the I Amended Zoning Code that they have been completed in compliance with CEQA in that i they contain a complete and accurate accounting of all environmental impacts. � Section 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS THAT THE Amended Zoning Code is � consistent with the Lynwood General Plan. i i Section 3. City Council HEREBY APPROVES and ADOPTS the Amended Zoning Code I as presented at the public hearing of , 2005. � I Section 4. The City Council FURTHER DECLARES that the Director of Development I Services or his/her designee shall be the primary party responsible for successful completion of the mitigation measures specified in the Initial Study. j i Section 5. The City Council directs the Community Development Director to submit the � Notice of Determination on the Amended Zoning Code to the Los Angeles County Clerk i pursuant to law. I � � � ORDINANCE NO. , 2005 Section 6. The Secretary of the City Council is hereby directed to affix her/his signature to this Ordinance signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Lynwood, and the Secretary, or his/her duly appointed Deputy is directed to attest thereto. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _th day of , 200.5, by the City Councii of the City of Lynwood. MAYOR ATTEST: �, , City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. was duly and regularly introduced on the th day of , 2005 with its first reading and then passed and adopted by the City Council i of the City of Lynwood on the _th day of , 2005, by the following roll call I vote as the same appears on file and of record in the office of the City Clerk. I AYES: � NOES: I ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I CITY CLERK OF THE CIN OF LYNWOOD � I � � i � I " I � I � I ; I � I � NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: Office of Pianning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 County Clerk From: City of Lynwood County of Los Angeles 11330 Bullis Road 500 West Temple Lynwood, California 90262 Los Angeles, Califomia 90012 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21151 of the Public Resources Code . Project Title: Lynwood Zoning Code State Clearinghouse Number: Lead Agency: City of Lynwood, 310-603-0220 Project Location - Specific: Corporate boundaries of the City of Lynwood. Project Location - City of Lynwrood, County of Los Angeles Project Description: The proposed project consists of amendment of the Zoning Code. This is essentially a brand new Code for the City. The major items that were retained include many of the provisions from the existing commercial and industrial zone districts and most of the Development Standards from each of the zoning districts. Since the existing Code is over 20 years old, many new features have been added; as an example Specific Plan Area, Trip Reduction, Grading, etc. Severai sections refer to other Ordinance's of the City, like Subdivision, CEQA, eta This proposed Code I includes requirements for each of the Zone Districts approved on the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan Update approved by the City CounciL I This is to advise that the City of Lynwood as Lead Agency has approved the above described Negative i Declaration on: I ; �Enter Approval Date) I and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project. � i 1. The Project will not have a significant impact on the environment. � 2. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this Project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. I 3. Mitigation measures will be included in the approval of specific projects. ( 4. A Statement of Overriding Conditions was not adopted for this Project. � 5. Findings were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. � i This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project � approval is available to the General Public at Lynwood City Hall, 11330 Bullis Road, Lynwood, California, 90262. . I � Signature: Date: � Title: Director of Development Services, City of Lynwood I i Date received for filing at County of Los Angeles: � i Date received for filing at OPR: i i I � � NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 . Sacramento, Califomia 95814 � County Clerk From: City of Lynwood County of Los Angeles 11330 Builis Road ° 500 West Temple Lynwood, California 90262 Los Angeles, California 90012 : SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21151 of the Public Resources Code Project Title: Lynwood Zoning Code State Clearinghouse Number: Lead Agency: City of Lynwood, 310-803-0220 Project Location - Specific: Corporate boundaries of the City of Lynwood. Project Location - City of Lynwood, County of Los Angeles Project Description: The proposed project consists of amendment of the Zoning Code. This is essentially a brand new Code for the City. The major items that were retained include many of the provisions from the existing commercial and industrial zone districts and most of the Development Standards from each of the zoning districts. Since the existing Code is over 20 years old, many new features have been added; as an example Specific Plan A�ea, Trip Reduction, Grading, etc. Several sections refer to other Ordinance's of the City, like Subdivision, CEQA, etc. This proposed Code includes requirements for each of the Zone Districts approved on the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan Update approved by the City Council. . Comments will be received on the proposed Negative Declaration frcm through ' A public Hearing wiil be conducted on the Proposed Project on at the hour of 6:30 P.M. or soon thereafter as the matter may be heard by the Lynwood Ptanning Commission located at, 11330 Bullis Road, Lynwood, California, 90262. Further information concerning this matter may be obtained by contacting the Development Services Department at (310) 603-0220 durin the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:OOP:M., Monday through Thursday. Signature: �� Date: I � �Z j�� `� . Title: Director of evelop t Services, City of Lynwood Date receiued for filing at County of Los Angeles: Publish: � � (21 Days Pnor to Public Hearing) . � - CITY OF LYNWOOD � LYNWOOD ZONING CODE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (TO $E COMPLETED BY LEAD AGENCY) 1. BACKGROUND • 1. Applicant: City of Lynwood 11330 Bullis Road _ , Lynwood, California 90262 TEL: (310) 603-0220 2. AgenY. Grant Taylor City of Lynwood � 11330 Bullis Road � Lynwood, California 90262 TEL: (310) 603-0220 3. . Date Checklist Submitted: October 5, 2004 � ' 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Lynwood, ', 5. Proposal: The proposed project consists of amendment of the Zoning Code. This is essentially a brand new Code for the City. The major items that were retained include many of the provisions from the existing commercial and industrial zone districts. Since the existing Code is over 20 years old, many new features have been added; as an example Adult, Trip Reduction, Grading, etc. . Several sections refer to other Ordinance's of the City, like Subdivision, CEQA, etc. This proposed Code includes requirements for each of the Zo�e Districts approved on the General Plan Land Use Map approved by the city councii. The major new Code area is Specific Plan Area. The proposed project requires the following approvals: ' Approval by the Planning Commission after noticed public hearing. Approval by the City Council after noticed public hearing 6. Purposes of an Initial Study: are to (1) provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration, (2) enable an applicant or lead agency to modiry a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR i§ prepared, thereby enabling the project to quality for a negative declaration, (3) assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be significant and expiaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant, (4) facilitate � environmental assessment early in the design of a project, (5) provide documentation of the City of Lynwood Page -1 October, 2004 Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and (7) eliminate unnecessary EIR's. A proposed Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either, (1) the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a ' significant effect on the environment, or {2) the initiai study identified potentially significant , effects but (a) revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the Applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (b) there is no substantial evidence before the Agency that fhe project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. � Environmental Factors Potentially Affected , An Environmental Checklist Form (Form) is used to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project (The Fonn has been prepared by the Resources Agency of Califomia to assist local govemmental agencies, such as the City of Adelanto, in complying with the requirements of the Statutes and Guidelines fo�Jmplementing the Califomia Environmental Quality Act). � r The following Form has been used to review the environmental effects of the proposed project with � respect to the following issue areas: , Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities Service Systems Geophysical Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics , Water Hazards CuRural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance B. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: , (To be compieted 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. The only environmental mitigation measure attached to this ,; project is the requirement that a detailed noise study be prepared and submitted to the City for , review and approval to verify that the 45 CNEL interior noise standard will be achieved. m Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a sign'rficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described herein have been added to this project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. " ❑' The proposed projecf may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. , � ❑ The proposed project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least the , effect(s), that has/have been identrfied as "potentially significant impacY' or "potentially City of Lynwood Page - 2 October, 2004 Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study significant unless mitigated", has/have been: (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the � • earlier analysis described on the attached pages. An Environmental Impact Report is required, ° but it is to analyze only those effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not ` be a signrficant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have either been: (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards; or (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant Yo that earlier ElR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. APPROVED FOR DISTRIBUTION BY: �1/(��''� " Grant Taylor, Dire'ctor of Development Services ' DATE: October5, 2004 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts . 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No ImpacY' answers that are adequately . suppoRed by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A" No ImpacY' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources sliow that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No ImpacY' answer should be expiained where it is based on site-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). � 2) All answers must Yake account of the whole action invoived, inciuding off-site as well as on-site, . cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as • operationai impacts. - 3) .Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially sign�cant, less than significant with mifigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant ImpacY' is appropriate rf Yhere is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant: If there are one or more "Potentially ' Significant ImpacY' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. , ' 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the i incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant ImpacY' to a"Less Than Signrficant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, � . and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a iess than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA i process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the foltowing: . . i _ City of Lynwood Page - 3 October, 2004 i � Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for � review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the eariier document pursuant to , applicable legai standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. " c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated" describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., generai plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where . the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuais contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is oniy a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead ` agencies should normalty address the questians from this checklist that are relevant to a projecY§ environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9). The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance , Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: , a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ o b}Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? a Q w ❑ City of Lynwood Page - 4 October, 2004 , Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the , area? ❑ ❑ p � Aesthetics Impact Discussion� , The proposed project is located in an urbanized portion of the greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, within the City of Lynwood. The visual character of the project area is typical of an older and partially ' revitalized community. Aithough there are no designated Scenic Highways in the City of Lynwood, Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway are routes designated for special street landscaping in � the Scenic Highways Element of the City Genera� Plan. ,. The existing deteriorated and dilapidated structures in the City will be repiaced with new residential, commercial and industrial buildings, parking areas,. landscaped areas and street improvements pursuant to the new Zoning Code. Mitipation and Residual Impact: The Zoning Code wiil improve the aesthetics of the oommunity by constructing new modem residential, commercial and industrial buildings, and by planting of drought tolerant landscaping. Light and .glare within the project site comes from vehicular headlights, street lighting, signage and . site lighting. Non glare lights focused at the ground will be used to illuminate commercial and industrial sites. Utilities wili be placed underground in new projects. These lighting requirements should not be a problem or a significant impact. All'street lighting to City standards to be shown on plans and installed by applicants. The proposed projects as mitigated will reduce aesthetic impacts to a level of insignificance. Recommended Monitorinq: ,. The Building Department will assure compliance with the mitigation measures. Potentially SigniFcant Potentially Unless �ess Than Significant Mitigation Significant No " impact Incorporated Impact Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant � environmental effects, lead ayencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site � Assessmenf Model (1997) prepared by the Calrfornia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would � the project: ' City of Lynwood Page - 5 October, 2004 Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping ~ and Monitoring Program of the Calrfomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ � c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could resuit in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Impact Discussion: The project area is currently fully urbanized land. There are no farmlands, Williamson Act contracts or agricultural uses within or adjacent to the City. Mitiqation and Residual Impact: No mitigation measures are recommended. Recommended Monitorinq: No mitigation monitoring is recommended. Potentially I Significant I Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No � Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I I III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance � criteria established by the applicable air quality � management or air pollution control district may be j relied upon to make the following determinations. Would I the project: � a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the i applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ � i b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute � substantially to an existing or projected air quality i violation? ❑ ❑ � ❑ I c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ; any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- � attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient � air quality standard (including releasing emissions which � i City of Lynwood Page - 6 October, 2004 ; ; � Lynwood Zoning Code Initiat Study exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ � e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Air Impact Discussion: The overall strategy for reducing air pollution in the district is contained in the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is the most current Board adopted AQMP. The AQMP provides control measures that reduce emissions to attain both state and federal ambient air quality standards by their applicable deadlines. The General Plan Program EIR of September 2002 considered and evaluated the generation of emissions from the use of electricity, gas and vehicle miles traveled and generation of particu�ate emissions from grading and construction. Construction impacts are temporary and can be controlled by temporary watering during windy periods. The City estimates the following long term daily impacts from vehicles and electrical usage from the proposed General Plan Update as follows: Pollutant Residential Commercial Industrial Total _ ROC 44.7 68.1 54.1 166.9 NOX 127.1 1572 125.0 409.3 CO 1028.9 1387.6 1101.8 3518.3 PM10 27.5 38.2 30.3 96 Total 7228.2 1651.1 1311.2 4190.5 i Impact thresholds for the South Coast Air Basin according to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Impact I Handbook, April 1993 (Page 6-3) are compared to the General Plan Update were as foilows: i SCAQMD Proposed ( , Emission Threshold Proiect Sianificance � I ROC 551b./day 166.91b./day Significant j NOx 551b./day 409.31b./day Significant � CO 5501b./day 3518.31b./day Significant ( PM10 150 Ib./day 96.0 Ib./day Not Significant � The proposed project will not generate a CO hotspot, create objectionable odors, emit toxic or ; hazardous emissions, bum hazardous, medical or municipal waste or emit carcinogenic I contaminants. The prior Program EIR for the General Plan Update has previously considered the I impacts from the Zoning Code Update. � I Mitiqation and Residual Impact � Developers will be required to build and dedicate the streets that are required in the Circulation � Element of the General Plan Update. Developers will also be required to grade sites in accordance with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Periodic watering will be used during construction to I City of Lynwood Page - 7 October, 2004 i I I I Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study reduce dust to a level that is not significant. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on either the shod term or the long term air quality of the region that has not been previously considered. , Section 25-67 of the proposed Zoning Code includes the Trip Reduction policies ofthe City. These mitigation measures will reduce impacts to levels of insignificance. Recommended Monitorinq The Building Department and the City Engineer will review plans to assure that the above mitigation measures are complied with and that as sites are developed that they wili be watered to assure dust controL The City Engineer will monitor dust control methods to determine that no sign�cant leveis of ` dust are generated from construction. The Development Services Department will review projects to ; assure that the necessary trip reduction policies of the Zoning Code are implemented. Potentially Significant Potentialiy Unless Less Than Signiflcant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporeted Impact Impact IV. BIOL.OGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modrfications, on any species identified ' as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, poGcies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and � Wildiife Service? ❑ ❑ p � � b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian I habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in � local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the ' Cafifomia Departmenf of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildiife Service? ❑ p � � 1 c) Have a substantiai adverse effect on federally i protected wettands as defined by Section 404 of the °_. Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, � vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, fiiling, hydrological interruption, or other means7 ❑ ❑ ❑ � d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native I resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with , established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ❑ ❑ ❑ •■ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ` protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ ❑ ❑ � � , City of Lynwood Page - 8 October, 2004 � I � � Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ p e Boilopic Impact Discussion: The City of Lynwood is a fully developed urbanized area with existing commercial, industrial, residential and public uses. There are no rare or endangered species, no wetlands and no wildlife corridors on the project site. City Staff has reviewed the list of Threatened and Endangered Species in Appendix E and concluded that there are none within the City of Lynwood. Mitiqation and Residual Impact: No mitigation measures are recommended. Recommended Monitorinq� No mitigation monitoring is recommended. Potentiaily I I Significant i Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No � Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: � a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the i significance of a historical resource as defined in � 015064.5? ❑ p � • ' b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ' significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to I n 15064.5? ❑ � � � c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological I resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ o � i d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ' outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ p � i i Cultural Resources Imoa�ct Discussion: I No archaeological, paleontological, cultural, ethnic or heritage resources are anticipated on the i proposed project site because of its long term urbanized nature. No resources have been observed in the project area. The Lynwood Pac�c Electric Raiiway Depot that is listed as a culturai resource has � been relocated from 11453 Long Beach Boulevard to the City park located at ML King Boulevard and I Bullis Road. City of Lynwood Page - 9 October, 2004 � � I I Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study Mitiqation and Residual Impact: Developers will be required to agreed to the foilowing mitigation measures: " a. If archeological resources are encountered during grading they wiil be evaluated and removed by a qualified professional in accordance with CEQA regulations and appropriate Califomia guidelines. b. If the City,finds that a developer encounters cultural resources and fails to notify the Building Department, the City wiil place those responsible for the desttuction of historic and archaeologically significant resources on file with the County of San Bernardino and the State of California, Office of Historic Preservation. : Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. Recommended Monitorinq: The Building Department wiil implement the mitigation measures, if necessary. Potentially Significant • Potentialty Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmpact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: I a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial � adverse effects, including the nsk of loss, injury, or death � involving: �I i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on j the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoni�g � Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based � on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to I Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ , ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ � ❑ ❑ I iii) Seismio-related ground failure, including i : liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ ' e iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ p ■ ' . b) Result in substantial soi! erosion or the loss of topsoil? 'O O ❑ s 1 j City of Lynwood Page - 1-0 October, 2004 � i , i Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, , or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentiaily result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or,property? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e)_Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposai systems where sewers are not availabie for the disposal of waste water? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ � Geoloaic Impact Discussion: The City of iynwood is susceptible to disturbancesfrom regional seismic activity. Local seismic faults have been identified in the vicinity of the City. However, no seismic faults are located within the City. � The San Andreas Fault, located north and east of the City, and the Newport-Inglewood Fault, south and west of the City, may pose a potentiai th�eat to the project. Development along active seismic fauits is not an issue. Protection against damage by major regional seismic events is addressed through local building code requirements, which adhere to the Uniform Building Code. , In fhe event of a major earthquake along one of these nearby faults, Lynwood may sustain property damage, possibly resutting in injury and loss of life. in particular, an earthquake occurzing along the San Andreas Fauft has the potential to cause widespread upset. The levei of impact on the project will ultimately depend on a number of factors: the distance of the project from the quake's epicenter, � the magnitude of the quake, the characteristics of soils and subsurface geology of the affected area. Miti_qation and Residual Impact Mitigation measures that are incorporated into projects proposed by developers include: ` � a. A grading plan conforming to the requirements of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Buiiding I , Code shall be prepared and submitted fo 1he City Engineer for approvaL � • b. All construction shall be per building permits issued by the Building Department and . UBC standards and dust control shall be exercised at all times during construction. I c. Plan submittals must be prepared and signed by a Califomia Licensed Architect or j Engineer per State of California, Business and Professions Code. ` i Other mitigation measures available to the City of Lynwood include: � a. The City contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, allowing for i immediate expansion capability as the need arises. b. The City contracts with the tos Angeles County Fire Department for fire/rescue � ' services and can expand these resources as demand increases. � . I , Compliance with the above mitigation measures will reduce the impacts to e level of insignificance. � � City of Lynwood Page - 11 October, 2004 i I . I , Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study , � Recommended Monitorina The Building Department and the City Engineer will monitor grading operations and inspect structures to assure that the above mitigation measures are complied with to reduce seismic safety impacts and the impacts of grading. Potentially , Significant - Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No , Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Vil. 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 materiais? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ b) Create a.significant hazard to the public or.the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous . , materials into#he environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ v c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ' acutely hazardous materiais, substances, or waste within , one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schooi? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d) Be located on a site which is included on a(ist of � hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to . Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a resuR, wouid it create a significant hazard to the public or the � , environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ e i e) For a project located within an airport iand use plan � oc, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two ' miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safetyhazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ � ". f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, � would the project result in a safety hazard for people I residing or. working in the project area? O ❑ ❑ o I g) Impair impiementation o# or physically interfere with � . an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ; evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ e � I � I City of Lynwood Page -12 October, 2004 � I f Lynwood Zoning Code initial Study h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where . wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas orwhere residences are intermixed with wildlands? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Hazards Impact Discussion: a � Based on discussions with State,'County of Los Angeles, and City of Lynwood authorities, #he most common hazardous materials and hazardous waste problems and concems within the City and its surrounding sphe�e of influence are related to transportation accidents, illegal dumping, underground , storage tank (U5T) leaks, leaking natural gas pipelines, commerciallindustrial wastes, pesticides, and . illegal drug laboratories. Mitipation and Residual Impact: If contaminated soiis are encountered during grading, a Phase 1 Site Audit and remediation plan will be prepared by the developer. ` Developer shall obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. When and where appiicable, the developers will comply with all requirements of the County Department of Environmental Health Services (DEHS). These mitigation measures will reduce impacts 40 levels of insignificance. Recommended Monitorinq: The Building Department will periodically obseroe grading operations and stop same if conYaminated . soiis are encountered. DEHS will monitor the submission of the necessary reports and the issuance of any required DEHS ' permits for the proposed project. ' Potentially • Significant � _ Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact lmpact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — I Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge - requirements? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ` I 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 tabie level (e.g., the production I i City of Lynwood Page - 13 October, 2004 � � � � . I Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study 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)? ❑ ❑ ❑ o c) Substantially a�ter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ❑ ❑ � ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ o 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? ❑ ❑ p � , f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as 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 I which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ o i i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, � injury or death involving flooding, induding flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ � j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ e � Water Imoact Discussion: ( - i The flooding map for the Lynwood area has been revfsed as a result of raising of the levees on the � Los Angeles River. Only the small areas in the eastern portion of the City are subject to flooding as I illustrated in the General Plan. These areas are a resuit of the accumulation of stormwater when the Los Angeles River is full and the trap gates to the river are dosed. � I The residential, commercial and industrial deveiopment that is proposed in the Program General Plan i EIR will require the following estimated amounts of water: � � Residential 432 acre feet per year , Commercial 260 acre feet per year ; Industrial 208 acre feet per year � Total 900 acre feet per year City of Lynwood Page - 14 October, 2004 � � � I Lynwood Zoning Code Initiai Study , Adequate water fo� the project will be provided by the existing water system and the Metropolitan Water District. Mitiqation and Residual Impact: ,", : Mitigation measures for the proposed project include the following: a Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 requires low-flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings as follows: "After January 1, 1983, all new buildings constructed in this state shall use water closets and associated flushometer valves, if any, which are water-conservation water -- closets as defined by American National Standards Institute Standard A112.19.2. and , urinals and associated flushometer valves, if any, that use less than an average of 1- 1/2 gallons per flush. Blowout water closets and associated flushometer vaives are exempt from the requirements of this section." b. Titie 20 of the Califomia Code of Regulations Section 1604(� (Appliance Efficiency : Standards) establishes efficiency standards that give the maximum flow rate of all new shower heads, lavatory faucets, and sink faucets, as specified in the standard approved by the American National Standards Insfitute on November 16, 1979. and known asANSI A112.18,1M-1979. c. Title 20 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, 5ection 1606(b) (Appliance E�ciency � Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with regulations. No new ' appliance say be sold or offered for sale in California that is not certified by its manufacturer to be in compliance with the provisions of the regulations establishing j applicable efficiency standards. � � d. Title 24 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, Section 2-5307(b) (California Energy I Conservation Sta�dards for New Buildings) prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. � e: Title 24 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, Sections 2-5352(i) and (i) address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. These requirements apply to steam and steam-condensate � return piping and recirculating hot water piping in attics, garages, crawl spaces, or unheated spaces other than between fioors or in interior walls. Insulation of water- heating systems is also required. _ f. Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installatio� of residential water � softening or conditioning appliances unless certain conditions are satisfied. Included is j the requirement that, in most instances, the installation of the appliance must be � accompanied by water conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned � watec _ ; _ , ! g. Govemment Code Section 7800 specifies that iavatories in all public facilities I constructed after January 1. 1985, be equipped with self-closing faucets that limit flow I ' of hot water. i � City of Lynwood Page - 15 October, 2004 i � . � i Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study h. The Applicant has agreed to extend water mains to service the subdivision, with the design to conform to the City adopted water master plan or the requirements of the Water Superintendent i. The Appiicant has agreed to prepare a comprehensive drainage plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer approved by a licensed Civil Engineer and submitted to the City for approvaL These mitigation measures will reduce impacts to levels of insignificance. Recommended Monitorin4 .. The Building Department will review plans to ensure that the above mitigation measures for water resources are complied with. The City Engineer wili review water plans and the drainage plan. Potentialty Significant Potentially Uniess Less Than Signifcant Mitigation Significant No ' Impact Incorporated Impact Impact � IX. LAND USE.AND PLANNING -- Would the project: � a).Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ s , b) Conflict with any appiicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, locai coastal program, or zoning ordinance} adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ` ❑ - ❑ ❑ ■ , c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation pian or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Land Use Impact Discussion: The City of Lynwood General Pian Update sets forth the community's future through a series of goals, policies, and implementation measures. The Generai Plan Land Use Diagram depicts the future land use designations that will shape future.development in the community. The proposed Zoning Code is one of the tools that implements the previousiy reviewed General Plan Update. The discussion of impacts resulting from implementation of the General Plan investigated the impacts associated with buildout of the General Pian. Buildout was defined as the point at which ali proposed land uses under the General Plan have been implemented This point can only be estimated in time -' and may never actually take place. Development potential under the General Plan Update was 981 residential units located on , approximately 50 acres; 500,000 square feet of new and redeveloped commercial space located on City of Lynwood Page - 16 October, 2004 , Lynwood Zoning-Code Initial Study approximately 35 acres; about 400,000 square feet of new and redeveloped industrial space located on about 35 acres; and approximately 300 new classrooms to be constructed by the Lynwood Unified School District. This level of development was considered in the previously approved Program Environmental Impact RepoR for the General Plan Update. The proposed project consists of amendment of the Zoning Code. This is essentially a brand new . Code fo[ the City. The major items that were retained include many of the provisions from the existing ' commercial and industrial zones and the most of the Oevelopment Standards from each of the zoning districts. Since the existing Code is over 20 years old, many new features have been added; as an , example, Adult Ordinance, Trip Reduction, Grading, etc. Several sections refer to other Ordinance's of the City, Jike Subdivision, CEQA, etc. This proposed Code indudes requirements for each of the Zone Districts approved on the Land Use Element of the General Plan Update apProved by the City Council. The major new Code area is the Specific Plan Area District. Mitiqation and Residual Imoact Implementation of the Zoning Code provides a variety of mitigation measures to control and enhance . land uses: The Zoning Code also provides measures to make adjoining land uses more compatible. � No additional mitigation measures are required. ° Recommended Monitorinq: The proposed Zoning Code will 6e implemented by the Development Services Department, the Pianning Commission and the City Council. Potentially Significant , Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Mcorporated - tmpact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: . I . a) Resuft in the loss of availability of a known minera! resource that would be of value to the region and the i residents of the state? . ❑ ❑ ❑ � b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important I mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ! general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Mineral Resources Impact Discussion: ? The construction of the projects under the new Zoning Code will result in the consumption of fossil j fuel resou�ces for electricity, heating, cooling, transpoRation and construction. Non- renewable energy and minerai resources will also be consumed. Existing blighted areas wili be removed as a � �esult of implementing the proposed project. In a regional context, the level of natural resource � consumption is not considered significant. , � � I City of Lynwood Page - 17 , October, 2004 � , ' Lynwood Zoning Code` Initial Study Mitiqation and Residuai Imoact To reduce impact on natural resources the City requires the following: a. Applicants will comply with the ene�gy conseryation measures required by State laws including requirements for the use of energy-efficient fixtures and energy saving design • elements in new construction (Government Code Section 66473.1). b. Water conservation techniques discussed above in water resources, shall be . . required for.proposed development to minimize consumption: The mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. ,Recommended Monitorinq: The Building Department and the City Engineer will review plans to assure that the above mitigation measures are implemented. ` Potentialty Significant • Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mi4igation Significant No ' Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XI: NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ' excess of standards established in the iocaf general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ❑ ❑ � � b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive '. . groundbome vibration or groundbome noise leveis? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ c) A substantial permane I t increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ � � d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels'in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ p � e) For a projecY located within an airport land use pian - or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two � miles of a publicairport o� public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project � .. area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ e f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ' , City of Lynwood Page - 18 October, 2004 . Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study � would the project expose peopie residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels7 ❑ ❑ ❑ � Noise ImpactDiscussion� Noise levels will be increased from cars and trucks. Noise levels as high as 86 dB CNEL may be experienced at approximately sixty feet from centerline of major roadways. 7here wiil be a significant increase in noise levels within the development areas during construction, particularly in conjunction � with grading and other siTe preparation activities. Typical noise levels produced by various, types of construction equipmen4 have been determined by the EPA and range generalty from 70 to 95 d6. Diesel truck engines operate at noise levels of approximately 84-86 d6 CNEL at a distance of 50 feet. • The General Plan exterior standard for single family homes in Lynwood is 65 dB CNEL Noise decreases with distance at a rate of approximately 4 d6 per 100 feet. Noise barriers usually reduce noise levels by about 8 d6. Normal construction techniques of residential units reduce noise levels by another20 d6 and when combined with barriers will bring interior noise levels within acceptable limits. Mitiqation and Residual lmpact: Tha foliowing are specrfic mitigation measures that are incorporated into development approvals for _ sp} cific projects that will lessen the significance nf operational noise impacts to future residents: a. Construction and operations activities will be limited in projects by the City to week.days between 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. This requirement will be enforced. b. Developers of residential units will be required to construct noise barriers to bring interior ,- residential noise levels into the acceptable range. These mitigation measures will reduce impacts to levels of insignificance. Exterior noise levels and , interior noise levels will not exceed those permitted in the Noise Element of the General Plan Update. Recommended Monitorinq , The Building DepaRment and the City Engineer will monitor operations to assure that the above , mitigation measures are complied with. The Building Department wiq review plans to assure that the , energy conservation laws are enforced for the development of the future residentiaP uses,,which wiil � have the added benefit of reducing interior noise levels. � Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact " ' XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING'-- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, eitherdirectly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension � of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑. e City of Lynwood Page - 19 October, 2004 tynwood Zoning Code Jnitial Study b) Displace substantial nambers of existing housing, .. necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ e � c) Displace substantiaf numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Population and Housinq Impact Discussion: Population Imoact Discussion: The General Plan and proposed Zoning Code will encourage the development of new and . redeveloped commercial and industrial facilities that will result in a net increase of jobs. The proposed . increase of 981 new residential units is in accordance with, and meets the regional projections estabiished by the Southern California Association of Govemments (SCAG). At 4.819 persons per '' unit the 981 units will result in a population impact of 4,727 persons. This increase in population will result in an increase of approximately 2,158 students (981 x 2.2). From 2002 to 2010 the School District has projected an increase of 2,249 students (21,141 - 18,892 (Vllestberg + White)). In the review of the proposed zoning Code, the City has considered its effect orr the housing needs of the region. In so considering, it has relied upon documents and incorporates herein haec verba the following documents: the Redevelopment Plan of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lynwood; the General Plan Update of the City of Lynwood; the Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Lynwood; and all environmental analysis documents contained in the Program Environmentai Impact Report for the Generaf Plan Update. As damonstrated in this Initial Study there is an adequate balance between the anticipated effects of this project and the need forpublic services and available . fiscal and environmental resources. The projects undertaken under the proposed Zoning Code wil( have a beneficiai impacf on jobs in the Lynwood area Mitiqation and Residual Impact: � No mitig�tion measures other than those discussed throughout this Initial Study are recommended. The reader is referred' especially to the mitigation measures in Air Quality, Geology and Soils, - Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Transportation/Traffic and Utility Service Systems: Mitigation measures discussed in these sections reduce noise levels and traffic congestion, improve air quality, consume less natural resources including fuel, wood, sand and gravel, use less gas, electricity and services and consume less water. These mitigation measures reduce the impact on population and-housing to less than significant. Recommended Monitorinq: " The mitigation measures described in the other sections of this Initial Study will be monitored by the Buiiding Department and the City Engineer. City of Lynwood Page - 20 October, 2004 Lynwoocl Zoning Code , Initial Study Potentially - Significant ` Potentially Uniess Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No , Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmental facilities, need fo� new or physicaliy altered go4emme�tai 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: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ � � Police protection? ❑ ❑ � � Schools? ❑ ❑ p e � Parks? , ❑ ❑ ❑ ■- Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ � Public Services Impact Discussion: Implementation of the projects under the proposed Zoning Code is expected to generate the foliowing demands for the projected population increase of 4,727 persons. Service Rate Proiect Demand Fire 1 pe� 2,500 1.89 Firemen Police 1 per 1,125 4.20 Policemen Schools 2.2 per D.U. 2,158 Students � Solid Waste 12 per capita 28.2 tons /day . Source: INagner & Assaiffies, Inc. ," k The impact of this population increase has been considered in the Program Environmental Impact Re'port for the General Plan Update. - Mitiqation and Residual Imqact: Developers will be required to mitigate public service impacts as foliows: a. Fire protection shall be provided to the requirements of the Lynwood Fire Chief. Fire protection shall include, but not be limited to, fire hydrants no more than 330 feet apart. , Blue dot identification on final pavement will be required for all hydrants installed. City of Lynwood Page - 2T October, 2004 Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study b. As required, Applicants shall meet all State required Classroom Structure Authority Fees at such time as permits are obtained for the construcfion of projects. � The proposed mitigation measures will reduce the impacts on public services to levels of insignificance. " Recommended Monitorinq: ' The Building Department and the City Engineer wiil collect fees and will ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented. Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incnrporated Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Does the project include recreational facilities ar �equire the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ e Recreation, Impact Discussion: The increase in populatiort will increase ihe need for additional recreational space within the City. The Ham Park Replacement Project will replace of park facilities acquired by the School District. . Development of "Bike Park" along the Los Angeles River south of Imperial Highway will have a small, , but beneficial impact on recreational facilities. Mitiqation and Residual ImpacY The City will use all available means to implement the recreational standards established in the General Plan Update. ; ' Recommended Monitorinq: 7he Development Services Director and the City Manager will be responsible for informing developers of the City's recreationai requirements and use other means of dedication and financing to provide necessary recreational facilities. Mitiqation and Residual lmqact: No mitigation measures are proposed. City of Lynwood Page - 22 October, 2004 Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study Recommended Monitorina No Mitigation Monitoring is required. Potentially Significant Potentialiy Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ` Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantiai in relation to the existing fraffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either , the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion, at intersections)? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ` b) Exceed, either individuaily or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency fordesignated roads orhighways? c) Result'in a change in air tra�c pattems, including either an 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)? . ❑ ❑ p ■ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ � Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ � g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ p � Transportation / Traffic Impact Discussion Table 4.3-1 of the General Plan Circulation Element shows the existing traffic count data collected by the City. These data are made up of counts taken in January 1997. Appendix A of the General Plan details the source of each count and provides a detailed summary of the count data. Daily volume to capacity ratios for existing roadways have been determined for locations where daily traffic volumes are availabie. Table 4.3-T of the General Plan Circulation Element shows the daily volume to capacity ratios for the Planning Area. City of Lynwood Page - 23 October, 2004 Lynwood Zoning Code IniYiai Study � Mitipation and Residuai Imoact: The developers will be required to instail concrete curb, concrete driveways, asphalt paving to City standards and to dedicate any required street widths in accordance with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. With the implementation of these mitigation measures there are no significant transportation and traffic impacts from the proposed project. Recommended Monitorinq: ' The Building'Department and the City Engineer wii6 review development plans and will ensure that the required circulation system is implemented. . Potentially Significant • Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ' XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the : applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or � ; wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ' facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing " 'facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑, d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? . ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment _ provider which serves or may serve the project4hat it has adequate capacity to serve the projecYs projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ � Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted . capacity to accommodate the projecYs solid waste disposai needs? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ City of Lynwood Page - 24 October, 2004 Lynwood Zoning Code Initial S4udy g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ', regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑ � . Utilities and Service Svstems Impact Discussion: Water ' Water availability is discussed in the Water section of this Initial Study Sewer Development projects will be required to hook up to the existing sewer system. The flows from the proposed land uses of the General Pian Update are expected to be about the same as for the past land uses. According to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District the fiow rates from single family, ' duplex, triplex, fourplex and industrial uses are 260, 312, 468, 624, and 200 gallons pe� day. The flow rate for shopping centers is 325 gallons per day. The proposed development projects previously considered in the Program Environmental Impact RepoR for the General Plan Update are expected to generate an additional 505,404 gallons of wastewater per day as follows: Use Flow Rate Flow COd SS Total � Residential 260 255060 2943 1148 259151 Commercial 325 162500 1500 585 164585 Industrial 200 80000 1200 468 81668 Total 497560 5643 2204 505404 Electricity and Gas Electricity is provided to the City by Southem Califomia Edison The proposed projects under the General Plan Update are anticipated to use 1.4 million KWH per year as follows: Use Rate/Year Units Total Residential 5626 981 5519106 Commercial 13.6 500000 6800000 Industrial 4.4 400000 1760000 Total 14079106 The Southem Califomia Gas Company suppiies natural gas-to the city through a fixed transmission and distribution system. Several major naturai gas mains pass through Lynwood. Available natural gas supplies are sufficient to meet the existing needs of the proposed developments. Southem California Gas Company (SGG) provides natural gas service to the entire Pianning Area, with gas distribution lines located throughout the Planning Area. Gas lines can be extended on demand,in accordance with the Company's policies and the California Public Utilities Commission. City of Lynwood Page - 25 October, 2004 Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study The proposed project can be anticipated to use about 9 million cubic feet per month as foilows: Use Rate/Year Units Total Residential. 6665 981 6538365 Commercial 2.g 500000 1450000 lndustrial 2 400000 800000 Total 8788365 SCG has developed several programs to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. Telephone Telephone service to the city is provided by Pacific Bell. Pacific Bell telephone lines a�e located throughout the City and service is provided on a demand basis. Pacrfic Bell tries to coordinate the installation of its facilities with other utility companies in order to run its cables along side other company lines in the same trench or on the same Pole. Unless a plant facility is needed, Pacific Bell will provide the funds to supply telephone services to project sites directly, or a reimbursement agreement with developers will be prepared. The City requires that all new improvements be placed . underground. .. Pacffic Bell is constantly upgrading its system in order to offer its customers the latest technology. Pacific Bell can provide all the special caliing features such as call forwarding, call waiting, 3-way . calling, and so forth. Pacific Bell also has the ability to provide high speed internet access for R computers with lines to a fiber-optic network. ° Mitiqation andResidual lmqact: � Developers will be required to implement the following mitigation measures, which will mitigate implact i to a IeveF of insignificance: a. As determined by the City Engineer, Developers will be required to connect to the , sewer system and pay any required hook-up fees. Design shall conform to the adopted sewer master plan or requirements of the City Engineer. b. The Developer/City will extend City water mains to service the projects, if required. Design shall conform to the City adopted water master plan or to requi�ements of the Water Superintendent. c. Utilities shall be installed underground to all lots per Public Utilities Commission requirements. These mitigation measures will reduce impacts to levels of insignificance. , , Recommended Monitorinq: , The Building Department and the City Engineer will collect fees as may be required and wiil ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented. ' Gity of Lynwood Page - 26 Octobe�, 2004 ° Lynwood Zoning Code Initial Study � Potentialty Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XViI. 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 wiidlrfe species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a piant 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 . , , � period,s of California history or prehistory? ` ❑ ❑ p ■ _ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limiled, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incrementaP effects of a project are considerabie when viewed in connection with � the effects of past projects, the effects of other curcent projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ❑ ❑ O ■ c) Does the project have environmental effects which , will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or i�directly? ❑ ❑ p � Documents Consulted � Lynwood General Plan Update CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, April 1993 Department of Finance, Population and Housing Projections - On-Line, January 2003 Lynwood School District - On-Line _ US Census - Online Participation Michaei J. Wagner of Michaei J. Wagner & Associates, Inc. participated in this Initial Study , City pf Lynwood Page - 27 October, 2004 � � � � AGE��A �� (VOo ._.._.�—� CI��E ��. .�-- s --�._�_4_ , S DATE: December 14, 2004 � TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Rlanning Commission ' FROM: Grant Taylor, Director of Development Services Si BJECT: Inclusionary Zoning / Affordable Housing � The attached artide was provided by Commissioner Castro-Ramirez. The State of California is experiencing a severe shortage of not only totaF housing units but affordable housing. In response to the housing deficiency, the State has mandated local government to provide its fair share of regional housing (RHNA). The City of ; Lynwood has been mandated to provide 967 new housing units in a seven (7) year planning period (1998 — 2005). , The State also passed Assembly Bill AB1866 that mandates local governments.to approve second residences administratively in R-1 (Single-Farnily Residentia!) zones. A number of cities including Los Angeles are seriously considering "inclusionary zoning" - .. which requires developers to provide a minimum number of new residences for low income persons, usually about fifteen (15%) of the total units in new projects. Inelusionary zoning has become a controversial issue and the State Assembly anci Senate are considering passing bilis to mandate cities to implement inclusionary zaning provisions in their General Plans and zoning ordinances. , � _ . ' H\WORDFILENLANNMG\STAFFRPTmemo.painclusionaryzoning.doc i ' , � � Page 1 of 1�4 �� LA �� 1 � � �� NOVEMBER 19 - 25, 2004 � Rebel With a Plan Ed Reyes is angry. He wants the "zombies" in L.A.'s Planning Department out. He wants affordable-housing supporters in. And he wants his more polite colleagues on the City Council to help him pull it off. by Robert Greene � �� '��'�� it �:,, 'Reyes! barked the planning supervisor. In my office! Right �°�" {�'��_, nowi„ n�� ,,>��;`�}�~�� - �ro. � #'r� a' ::. +^� � � � The young urbanist s hands shook as he entered the City Hall ��' 4 - ~� planning office. His teeth were clenched, his mind filled with ;< � �` ,�� . f �a the image of 4he pregnant woman, beaten and bloodied, he , ��g '> had spotted an hour before as his city car rounded a comer in : �. �'� • South Los Angeles. He now walked past the "zombies" — his �� ; �"� term — who pushed paper through a Planning Department � �- that seemed to be sleepwalking instead of remaking the future ,� ��_` � f' of Los Angeles. His partner, who didn't want to stop the car '� '"��` ^` and help the beaten woman, didn't want to wait for the police •; s`� .°- �,r� to arrive — he was already a city zombie. It made Ed Reyes `� ' mad. •� ,, "Reyes!" his supervisor repeated. "What the hell were you (Photo by Gregory Bojorquez) thinking?" The story tumbles out from Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Reyes as though it happened yesterday, and not same 16 years Also in this issue: - ago. The frustration feels fresh. The quiet ex-planner starts his standard speech. "L.A. today is a tale of two cities, with the haves weicome to Pianning protected by City Hall, the have-nots left to fend for themselves." iol: - But this time the conversation veers from Reyes' plans to remake The ins and outs of Iz the city, and the Planning DepartmenYs reluctance to sign on, to by rtobert Greene the sharp recollection of that day in the late 1980s when he knew he had.to get out of there. His supervisor — a man who still works there — was yelling at him for getting involved. �, "Dude was Captain Bligh!" Reyes says, flashing a half smile. "How can } say this? He gave importance to all the wrong things. He tells me I could have undermined the department for getting involved: That f shouldn't have stopped. That I shouldn't have helped this woman. I shouldn't have argued with the dude who was beating her. I could have jeopardized the budget." Back then, though, Reyes was too hot, or too dumb, to back down. Jeopardized the budget? How, exactly? If it were another part of the city, he demanded, would you respond the same way? If it were a white woman in the San Fernando Valley instead of a Latina south of the http://www.laweekly.com/ink/prir.tme.php?eid=58561 t l/18/2004 - . Page 2 of 14 Santa Monica Freeway, what then? He was reminded that he was on probation. Still, he kept , arguing. And in the young urban planner's anger the memories coalesced of other incidents that had been gnawing at him since he started working at the Los Angeles City Planning Department. The mocking of the new Latina councilwoman, Gloria Molina. His own desk, stuck in a closet. This place is racist, Reyes concluded. Racist in office politics, racist in planning policy. But what could he do? He could sulk, or become a zombie. Or he could plan. , And there was so much to plan. It was 1988, and Los Angeles was painting itself into a corner. After a decade of incredible commercial growth, a coalition of wealthy and middle-ciass - homeowners and anti-sprawl environmentalists saw an L.A. lifestyle being swallowed up by rapacious developers. This city still was, as the name of a leading activist group put it, "Not Yet � New York," and a Valley-and-Westside coalition led the charge to pass the stringent slow- growth F'roposition U to keep it thaYway. Manhattanization had been put at bay. But to Reyes, slow growth meant too few houses and apartments, which meant an inevitable jump in housing prices. Laborers and civil servants working here would have to drive for hours fcom more-affordable homes out in the desert or in San Bernardino County. Thei� rush-hour commutes would clog freeways and streets. The smog would get thicker. And the Valley and the Westside, once again, would win special protections for their neighborhoods, while South L.A., Pico-Union and Northeast communities like Reyes' own Cypress Park would once again ' get the packed apartment houses and overburdened sewer lines and'streets. Reyes thought then and talks now about another way. Smart growth. Block sprawl by actualiy making housing denser. Put apartments on top of stores — and gardens on top of apartments. Make historic preservation as available to struggling Highland Park as it is to tony Hancock Park, as long as it doesn't keep housing prices out of reach of working people. Declare that environmentalism is not just a Westside NIMBY sport, and daim the L.A. River and adjacent industrial yards as greenspace where Latino families can play soccer. Divert part of the riverto form parks in rundown neighborhoods. Like Cypress Park. Instead of piling even more restrictions on developers, Reyes thought, maybe loosen up a bit, to encourage them to build. Perhaps require orily one parking space per unit instead of two, as long as the new apartment building is on a major public-transit thoroughfare. Let developers ' build more — as long as they devote a portion of every project to below-market affordable , housing, and as long as those affordable units appear equally throughout the city, and are not just plunked in low-rent minority areas. Other cities are doing that. Inclusionary zoning, they call it. . If 1 were ever in charge, Reyes' inner voice repeated to himself back then, things would be different. Development protections only in the rich areas? No more. The river — binding the city together instead of serving as a storm-water trench. Inclusionary zoning — on the books. These backward Planning Department supervisors — gone. But he wasn't in charge. Ne was in a.Planning Department of zombies, protecting the status quo. And rather than by any planning initiative or personnel slight, the point was driven into his gut by that searing image of the woman being beaten, the little girl seeing the city seal on his car and running out to piead for his help, the woman's cry —"�Ayudame!" — Help me! By his. zombie partner's insistence that they not get involved, and now, by his supervisor's shouts, . http://wwwlaweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=58561 1 U18/2004 � Page 3 of 14 chewing him out for putting a woman's life and 5afety above the departmenYs standoffish wotldview. And now it is 2004, and unlikely as it may seem, Ed Reyes — quiet Eastside kid who wrapped , up his bookishness, his vision and his anger into a career as a city piannec — is a city ,' councilman and chairs the powerfuFPlanning and Land Use Management Committee, with oversight of the Planning Department - ' What should he do with this power? Is it vision, or an old grudge, or both, that drives him to re- ' - create the city's approach to planning? Once or twice, he has exploded on the council floor, challenging his reluctant colleagues to accept affordable housing in their neighborhoods. More often he tones it down, mindful that he needs the backing of the wary development community and Mayor James Hahn. In the background lurk the March elections — not so much his as the one that will pit Hahn against � - two of his council colleagues (and two others). In the foregroundJooms the Planning ` Department, the source of his anger, the target of his reformist zeal. And at 4he top of the agenda stands inclusionary zoning, a policy s+multaneously mind-numbing and politically hot, `,. stirring up enough raw emotion to make homeowners, developers and affordable-housing advocates ready to go to war. it is a pivotal and defining moment not just for the planner-turned-councilman, but for the - entire city of Los Angeles. Perhaps ali of California. With or without Reyes and smart-growth programs, huge numbers of new arrivals (at least as many through births, the demographers say, as through immigration) will crowd the region over the next three decades. An entire population the size of Chicago will move in and demand a place to live. Forthe people already here, no amount of resistance or denial will obscure a simple fact: One version of the L.A. dream is slipping away. Sheer numbers and urban density already make the wide-open freeway a fading memory. The 45-minute jaunt from the surf to the ski slopes? Once a birthright, today a rarity. A quiet cul-de- sac, plenty of street parking for your party guests, a low-rise landscape, everyone's shot at a front lawn, an orange tree, a swimming pool and a barbecue — vanishing. ' Angry homeowners who invested in that dream are working to fight off new laws that encourage denser housing. Many Southem Californians have begun to blame unchecked immigration and, more particularly, Latinos. The Sierra Club this year fended off a challenge from an anti-immigration slate of candidates, while anti'-sprawl environmentalists find themselves labeled eliti§t. .. A three-way battle is brewing, and in its wake may come a sweeping political and social realignment on a scale not seen since voters sent liberal pro-growth Govemor Pat Brown packing and replaced himwith Ronald Reagan in ?966. The ties that bind key partners in the Democratic majority — wealthy liberals, environmental activists urban progressives and the burgeoning Latino majority — are stretching, and are about to snap. The political dancers are peering over their partners' shoulders and ogling some exotic strangers on the floor. Affordable housing, in the'topsy-turvy world at hand, may throw Latinos and blacks into the arms of once-hated realtors, bigtime developers and the http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=58561 11/18/2004 � f I Page 4 of 14 . � Republican business lobby. Less regulation, more building is their mantra. Liberal environmentalists and homeowners, labeled NIMBYs for a"not in my back yard" opposition to taller and more densely packed apartment blocks, may find themselves in an uncomfortable embrace with anti-immigrant groups. The assault on the Sierra Club is but one example. Progressives, trying to stay faithful to labor, may find themselves and their social-policy 'agendas abandoned by unions, who wili be lured by big financiers, realtors, developers and thousands of new construction jobs. Or not. The final shape of the realignment is unpredictable, because affordable housing and smart growth are emotional touchstones at least as much as they are policy issues. They press the hot buttons that the people of Los Angeles famously, and scrupulously, avoid discussing: race, class, imrnigration, and the right to a patch of ground and an open stretch of freeway. Ed Reyes understands that, and is trying to craft a strong-enough consensus among ali the parties to win new affordable housing and gain a measure of equity among L.A.'s neighborhoods, while giving life to a new breed of urban environmentalism. His goal is nothing short of re-defining the L.A. dream: a green city with recreation space for young people on the Eastside as well as the Westside, in South L.A. as well as the Valley, with efficient transit, ample opportunity and a social conscience. But as developers see the affordable-housing crisis as a rare chance to advance against so- called NIMBY homeowners and L.A:'s fabled red tape, and as affordable-housing advocates try to'squeeze concessions from developers, and as ail parties try to extract assurances from City Hall, Reyes and his backers may not be enough to control the future. Standing above the MacArthur Park Red Line station, Ed Reyes points out spots where derelict structures have given way to new mixed-use projects under programs he started in his � district that have now gone citywide: adaptive reuse, to tum old commercial buildings into housing; density bonuses, allowing increased floor-area ratio; and relief from mandatory parking requirements. With a sweep of his arm, Reyes shows where he wants to put flags of Central American nations and a market area for an Olvera Street—type experience. This is drug-dealer central, or at least it was. But with new attention from City Hall, it's no longer inconceivable that MacArthur Park could be a family destination. Critics call many of his proposals social engineering because besides making affordable places for#amilies to'live, they expressly aim to put people of all economic classes in any given neighborhood. Reyes tums around to point eastward toward the skyscrapers of Bunker Hill, and he lets loose. "It wasn't sociaf engineering when we spent millions of tax dollars to build these towers," he snaps. "We did this because L.A. wanted a central city. We wanted a skyline. And look who works tliere. Who benefits from that expenditure of tax dollars?" The answer, of course, is that weaithy lawyers, accountants, real estate brokers and business . leaders work in those towers. So do secretaries, bookkeepers, custodians and security guards, but Reyes says most of them commute by car or bus from miles away and have to hit the road before sunup for the privilege. � ' http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=58561 _ 11/18/2004 Page 5 of 14 Don't the rich have long commutes downtown too? Ah, there's the irony. More and more downtown young professionals who can afford the high mortgages and rents are abandoning their suburban condos and giving up on L.A. dreams of the ranch house, the pool and the " barbecue for a new urban vision: downtown living. The Spring Street loft boom may have played out, but developers of new projects, like Geoff Palmer's Medici, Orsini and the like, command top dollar. Most make no room for below-market units. Many Latinos, meanwhile, move out of downtown and Northeast L.A. as soon as they can and make their way to the suburbs to claim the older L.A. dream of the ranch house or the bungalow. Just how strong this trend is, and what it means to Los Angeles, is yet to be seen. -° As a yo�ng planning associate working in City Hall, Reyes began studying where in the city ail � the building permits were being pulled, and where all the specific plans — overlays that imposed special building restrictions — were granted. Time and again, his research showed, the city handed out permits like candy to anyone who wanted to build in Boyle Heights, Cypress Park, Pico-Union, South L.A. No specific plans there. The protections against overdevelopment went instead to the West Valley, West L.A., Hancock Park. Affordable-housing advocates note.a shocking symmetry between the maps Reyes created that mark the still-unprotected areas of the city and the older maps from the prewar era that show wfiere biack, Latino and Asian families could buy or rent without worrying about restrictive cacial covenants. The advocates' message is clear. Housing discrimination is alive and well. Minority areas get saddled with the big ugly boxes while the white areas are sheltered. The approval process has institutionalized NIMBYism, giving wealthier homeowners the power, through their City Council . representatives, to send undesirable development to the east or south ends of town. If that was the case in the slow-growth era, iYs even truer now, because of economics. " "It is the return of de facto segregation," contends Robert Gnaizda.— As general counsel of the Greenlining fnstifute, a Berkeley-based study and advocacy organization that plots strategies for affordable housing, Gnaizda notes that the national homeownership rate is 69 percent; but only 58 percent for California, much lower for Los Angeles, even lower for blacks and Latinos. Fifty years ago, he asserts, most blacks could get a high-paying job in L.A. without a high school diploma and could afford a median-priced home. Today, though, the median price of a home in Los Angeles County is between $400;000 ' and a half-million dollars. By most accounts, it would take an annual salary of close to six , figures for a buyer to.be able to afford it. Adding irony to injury, the property-tax system often compels first-time buyers of tiny condos or ramshackle houses with aston+shing sales prices to subsidize some of the very same wealthy 'homeowners who organize against new development. The owner of a five-bedroom house south of Ventura Boulevard, for example, may have paid $300 in 1978 but today enjoys a value of $1.5 million, a five-foid increase. But the tax will be calculated on the 1978 value, pius another 1 percent per year — less than a one-third increase in property taxes paid for ever- more-costly city services like police and fire protection. The new buyer of a four-bedroom house in Silver Lake will pay $1.5 million this year and wiil pay property tax on the full market value: http:Uwww.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=58561 I 1/18/2004 � Page 6 of 14 Gnaizda and other housing advocates support modifying Proposition 13, and he criticizes , business groups that rally to block such a move. But, in an example of the political realignment taking place over affordable housing, the , Greeniining Institute is staunchly pro-business when it comes to development. The group — _ which includes representatives of big banks and builders — says there is too much red tape. " IYs time to retum to the free market "California is legendary for govemment.regulations," Gnaizda complains. "It costs $100,000 more to build a home here than in Arizona." Then there are the environmentalists. "I'm in favor of environmental protections," Gnaizda insists. "But not for the salamander or the fairy shrimp. Not at the expense of peopfe." ' ' Reyes, joined by Councilman Eric Garcetti, is trying to support a new environmental paradigm ° to appeal to the Latinos who live by the river or in areas in which the urban forestry group • Northeast Trees is active. IYs a hard sell, though. °Latinos aren't tree huggers," one frustrated activist confides. As for the"free market, Reyes and his supporters don't believe it alone can solve the L.A. � housing crisis. On the councif floor, Reyes has wavered between impatience and outrage at his colleagues as ° they express reservations over mandatory indusionary zoning. At one point a year ago, he .' appeared to have brokered a deal to bring hearings on "IZ" and other affordable-housing strategies to every council district, and Tom LaBonge's mostly wealthy 4th District was to be first. But LaBonge later demurred, and the agreement collapsed. So did activists' hopes to bring IZ to an early vote. "Guys like Tom LaBonge, if they could, they would be riding around here on their horses with their cowboy hats on," Reyes mused later. "You know, oid school, 'White is right and we'll take care of our little brothers."' That comment aside, Reyes insists he no longer is motivated by anger, but by his vision of a city serving all its people. ' "My anger days, my chip-on-my-shoulder days, faded away a long time ago," he says. "I don't walk around contemplating the injustices to people in our community. Because I just wouldn't be able to get up in the moming." In 1988, Reyes was a fledgling assistant planner who had just returned home from Northern California to sign on with the department. For a young Catino urbanist from Cypress Park with � a UCLA master's degree, it was an era of excitement and possibility, brought on in part by the remade Tst District and his new City Cou�ci( representative, Gloria Molina Reyes was Cypress Park all the way. Even today, he lets drop, as he passes by a particular street comer, "We used to hang out here." Or, in fact, "I was hit by a car in this intersection," and "My brother was shot here." http://www.laweekly.com/ink/prinYme.php?eid=58561 11 /18/2004 I Page 7 of 14 Cypress Park was high-crime and high-rieglect, but Reyes believed he was coming home to ' ' make a difference through urban planning. Then there came one particular staff meeting at which the manager started mimicking Molina. . � "He imitated her, how she would posture herself and walk back and forth," Reyes recalls. "I think there was a level of ridiculing her, that was for sure. It was just a mockery of her directives." Reyes was shocked. Is this what we do? he asked his colleagues. Is this how we operate? WhaYs going on here? He complained to his supervisor, but he didn'thave much standing. He was already assigned to a desk that was stuffed in a closet. "No, really," Reyes says. "I kid you not. In a closet. The closet door was here" — Reyes reaches in front of him to illustrate the complicated arrangement —"and when they closed it, I could get in and out. When they opened it, I would be stuck in there." - An assistant planner who was hired later —"an Anglo guy," Reyes points out — got a real cubicle, with a real desk. Reyes asked about it. Ne was b�anded a troublemaker, and before - long he lost his spot in City Hall and was assigned to the fieid, where his job was to count mailboxes:- "They're pretty mean people;" Reyes says of his supervisors at the time, noting that most of them a�e stiif there. . He avoids naming names. But two of the top three deputies to Planning Director Con Howe — Franklin P. Eberhard and Robert H. Sutton — were there in Reyes' time. In fact, Eberhard has retired, but continues to heip lead the department, drawing both a pension and contract pay. Problems in the Planning Department predated Howe, who was still in New York during Reyes' tenure. But Reyes already knew he had to get out. "I had been doing so much work, it got to the point where I started getting other people's liinders, because they were taking off," Reyes says. "In the middle of the day. Going to the - rnovies. Bragging about how they could be at home. Taking care of their business. The guy that ragged about it the most, I ended up doing his work. And when I saw that, that really pissed me off. Because the accountability wasn't there." �- Reyes stewed over what had 6ecome of him in the Pianning Department as he rode in that city car, counting mailboxes, in South L.A. Then he saw an old Victorian house, with a huge picture window, through which he could plainly see a man beating a woman in the face. Despite his , " partner's protests, Reyes went to the front door. The first-floor tenant tried to tell him it was no big deal, the couple upstairs always fought. But Reyes wentaround back to find the door for the upstairs unit, and there he saw the beaten woman crawling on the floor in a trail of blood. "iAyudame!" she said: � "So F went back there; I saw the dude," Reyes recounts. "Dude had no shirt on. He was like in a rage. And I started yelling at him. What's wrong with you, you don't treat animals that way, how can you treat a human being that way? And I saw there was a baby on the floor. And he grabbed the baby. I was yelling, what are you doing, leave the baby alone. You can get arrested for this!" http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=58561 11/18/2004 Page 8 of 14 When the police arrived, Reyes says, he told his partner, "Man, don't tell anybody this happened. Man, I'm going to get shafted for this." Because, he explains, "I already knew the environment I was in. I already knew the hostility that was there: I could feel the racism. I've been in places like this. You feel it. You know it. And sure enough, man, the first thingthis dude does is he goes to a person and he tells." Reyes felt doomed. But he was fortunate enough to be taken under the wing of a woman who was trying to make changes in the department. She assigned him to the department director, Ken Topping, to do special projects like tracking down every motion that came out of the department. " "That's where you started seeing where the resources were being driven," Reyes said. "ThaYs _. where you started seeing the specific plans that were being designed or built. What areas of . the city were being taken care af. And when 1 realized what we had done, what we had leamed, it made me even angrier. Man, this is not only on an individual level. This is on an institutional level. And that we were driving our resources, And iYs so skewed. You can see it on the map.° At about this time, complaints about racism and unfaimess in the Planning Depattment trickled outto the CityCouncil, which demanded an accounting of practices there. A 1991 document called the Zucker Report recounted low morale and a culture of racism. Topping was saddled with the blame and was fired. In his place Mayor 7om Bradley tapped Howe, executive director of the Planning Department in New York. . But Reyes had had it. He heard from an old Cathedral High School classmate, then working at - the City Attorney's O�ce, that there was a guy running in the 1st District to succeed Gloria Molina who could use his help. . It was Mike Hemandez. Reyes called him up, and the two men interviewed each other for five nights straight. "Because 1 didn't know him," Reyes explained, "I didn't trust him. Because he , was very showy. He was like a big peacock. A lot of feathers." , But Reyes read up orr Hernandei, asked around, and decided he was the real deal. He helped ' Hernandez get elected, then became his planning deputy and introduced the concepts that had been rolling around in his mind for years. Hemandez helped get the ball rolling, but drug and alcohol problems, and finally his well-publicized arrest, slowed the pace. While he was in rehab, many of Hernandez's staffers moved on. Not Reyes. He stayed and became chief of staff. He sat with his boss, keeping him abreast of the goings-on at City Hall, encouraging him to stick with it. With Hernandez out of action, it was Mike Feuer and Jackie Goldberg who first introduced a motion in 2000 calling for a study of inciusionary zoning. : As Hemandez's term neared its end, Reyes started to think that perhaps he could run for the ' job himself. To most political insiders the idea was laughable. The job clearly belonged to Richard Polanco, the Eastside boss who was being termed out of the state Senate. Reyes asked Hemandez for his support, but the councilman, now back at work, said he was backing Polanco. Reyes felt betrayed. http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=58561 11/18/2004 ' Page 9 of 14 Then Polanco shocked everyone by dropping out of the race amid rumors of family problems. , Did Reyes have anything to do with the rumors? He denies it. Some Polanco backers in Cyp�ess Park insist to this day that Reyes played dirty. He barely avoided a runoff. But it was a done deal. Ed Reyes, a city planner, was elected to � the City CounciL In office, Reyes pressed forvrard on his planning initiatives, but ran headlong into some ' - familiar problems. Resources in his old department, he said, were focused on specific plans and preservation zones on the Westside and in the Valley, There we�en't enough planners to create an "all-star team" of expedited processing for developers who commit to building " affordable housing. There was a letter from Dwayne Wyatt, a planning associate who vrorked with Reyes, urging his former colleague earlier this year to put pressure on Mayor Hahn to oust Howe and his top deputies, fo� his own benefit, and that of other minority planners who he said failed to advance because of discrimination. Wyatt said it was also for the benefit of poor and minority areas of the city, which must bear the burden of development without the protections enjoyed by � wealthier areas, like historic-preservation zones and strategic plans that limit density and impose tough strictures on new projects. Wyatt requested a meeting to discuss "a number of long-standing concems many of the minority.planners have" about personnel practices, including "manipulation, favoritism and racism." , Reyes understood. He had been there. . Meanwhile, Con Howe missed a couple of key meetings on the topic of inclusionary zoning, and Reyes' staffers were incensed. They tried to push their boss to get tough with Howe. And the only way to do that was to get tough with the mayor. To them, iYs clear that Howe's priorities have li#tle to do with affordable housing. In some sections of tovirn, Howe is widely credited for using Planning Department programs and policies to make preservation of historic buildings a reality in Los Angeles. The city already had Historic Preservation Overlay Zones, or HPOZs, when Howe came in. But he gave them greater resources and rapt attention, and helped launch new HPOZs in many districts, inciuding Reyes'. "Con Howe has done a lot for historic preservation in this city," says Murray Bums of Angelino , ' Heights, a neighborhood of restored Victorians and Queen Annes surrounded by the tiny bungalows and densely packed apartments of Echo Park. "I think his view is that there's a possibility of Los Angeles being held in better regard by many people who don't live in L.A. if ' we can preserve the truly wonderful architecture we have." But to some political activists, thaYs just the problem. Resources go to historic homes instead of new housing for the thousands who must commute for hours, or live in their vans, or pay more than half their wages for rent. "The city needs an affordable-housing policy," says Assistant Professor David Diaz of Califomia State University Northridge, "and the elected [officials] are not going to deliver it. i'm http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=58561 11/18/2004 • Page ] 0 of 14 totally disillusioned with most of the minorities in city govemment, and the, quote, liberal mayor. Sometimes the bureaucracy has to take some flak, show some courage." Diaz, whose field is urban studies and planning, labels Howe "an absolute wimp" who has � failed to take account of the rapicJ increase in L.A. population. He says a good planning director would offer cowardly elected officials a certain measure of politicai cover, shielding them from necessary, but unpopular, decisions. Howe's image doesn't help. A handsome man with a shock of white hair, he has a bearing that can come off as aristocratic. His wife was president of the board of the Los Angeles Conservancy, the WesYs la�gest historic-preservation group. She is a principai project specialist at the Getty Conservation Institute. Both organizations symbolize, to minority activists, a white liberal elite. Howe dedines comment on efforts to oust him, except to acknowledge that he has long had a handful of unhappy employees arnong the many planners in his department. But he expresses p�ide in his efforts to encourage affordable housing in the city. "I've spent a lot of time in my career working with and trying to build affordable housing," Howe says. ' As for inclusionary zoning, Howe says he has "no point of view that this is a bad thing." He points out that he worked with Reyes to increase the number of affordabie-housing units that can be built near transit corridors. '9 really admire many of the things Ed Reyes has done," Howe says. . � IYs not an easy call for Reyes to make to Mayor Hahn. Reyes has endorsed his re-election bid, ' but he's also recently expressed dissatisfaction with the mayor's lack of support for _ inclusionary zoning. As Wyatt and others have argued that it is retirement time for Howe and several of his top lieutenants, Reyes struggles over whether to put his foot down and demand - Howe's ouster, or sirnply be the quiet staffer who finds different ways to get things done. "There's another issue: Hahn opposes mandatory inclusionary zoning. That means the ' proposal must be sufficiently watered down to get the mayor's signature, or council support must be significantly higher to oJercome his veto. That last scenario is extremely unlikely. Even among the proponents, there is little in the way of zeal for IZ beyond Reyes, Garcetti and, perhaps, council President Alex Padilla. Cindy Miscikowski is onboard, although quietly. And, of course, there is Antonio Villaraigosa. Isn't there? � Villaraigosa joined Reyes and Garcetti a year and a half ago at a City Hal� news event with ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, to jump-start the drive for inclusionary zoning. He combined the gravitas of Reyes with the cheerfui charisma of Garcetti, and added the cachet of his own name and reputation for consensus building. Since , then, though — and especialiy since last spring, when he began contemplating another run against Hahn — Villaraigosa has been very quiet on inclusionary zoning. . http;//www.laweekly.com/iRk/printme.php?eid=58561 11/18/2004 Page ] l of 14 "Antonio was only into it as long as he thought it was going to win, and he wasn't going to take any heat for it," said one frustrated IZ proponent. "But he's running for mayor now and he needs business [support]." - _ In fact, Villaraigosa's progressive credentials often obscure his ailiances with some of the same business leaders who oppose mandatory IZ. An uncompromising Villaraigosa demand for inclusionary zoning is unlikely through at least March, the mayoral primary, and probably the May runoff, as the challenger and Hahn court the same business campaign donors. That puts Reyes in an especially uncornfortable spot, if he wants to get IZ through the council anytime soon. As a declared Hahn man, he has very little sway right now over Viilaraigosa or, for that matter, any council member trying to decide whom to endorse. "I support inclusionary zoning," Villaraigosa said at a recent community forum. "Not necessarily the proposal thaYs on the table now." Villaraigosa did tell The Eagle Rock Association that he was disappointed with the Planning Department, and that the problems start at the top. But that's ali he would say. ' So has Reyes pressed Hahn to fire Howe, and with him the top deputies who iormented him a decade and a half ago? He responds with a typical Reyes-ism — he stops, looks upward, closes his eyes briefiy, • flashes a fleeting grin. "How can I say this?" Reyes asks aloud. People who know him look out for that phrase. It means something insightful, and controversial, but perhaps less than " straightforward, is corning. , "There are a few heroes in there that are carrying a lot of weight," Reyes finally says. "I just . need the leadership. Senio� management has gotten comfortabie and detached from reality." Sources inside City Hall said Hahn would stick with Howe at least until the plan for revamping Los Angeles Intemational Airport is approved. Approval came in October. Howe is still there. Eariier this year, Reyes stood on his own turf, nea� the tough Cypress Park streets where he grew up, and prepared to tell his constituents about inclusionary zoning. More housing for you and your families, Reyes tells neighborhood groups, because any developer who ever again hopes to build a house or apartment in Los Angeles must devote 12 percent to 15 percent of the project to affordable housing. He talks up more housing equity, and how new affordable units will be.distributed evenly around the city. _ - ° But at this forum at the River Center, half of his constituents were stalking out the door. As a panel of business-suited downtowners began delving into the controversial initiativs, some of the evenYs English-speaking organizers complained that the Spanish interpreter and her equipment, which arrived late, were causing a"disruption." They told their neighbors, in essence, to shut up. Now, as the interpreter leaned silently against a wall and the insulted Spanish speakers stormed out of the elegantmeeting hall, a fiustered Ed Reyes was left standing at the front of , ' the room to give his standard stump speech about a tale of two cities one privileged and protected, the other dumped on and abused. And this meeting, he later admitted thinking to http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=58561 ' 11/18/2004 . ° Page 12 of 14 himself, is the perfect example. Some weeks later, he spoke to the Empowerment Congress North Area Neighborhood Development Council, and it didri't go much better. Reyes toid the story of how half of his , constituents were disrespected at the River Center. But the black residents here were unimpressed. "Why," one African-American man demanded, "do we want to allow more density on our street? There's already not enough parking for us, and we live here, we've been putting money • and work into ourhomes. Why should we pack more people in and reverse everything we've been trying to do?" It didn't go much better at the Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council, at Jeast not according to Louise Clark Stone. "He referred to his Spanish-speaking constituents and his Asian-American constituents as . being disenfranchised 6y neighborhood councils," Stone said. '9 told him quite plainly I was offended by his reference to disenfranchisement. He backed ofF slightly, but he didn't apologize." Besides, Stone said, there was a reason that she and her neighbors moved years ago to places like Shadow Hills and Sunland-Tujunga. "When people move to an area like this, we do so because of the open space," she said. "We. put up with the inconveniences like long freeway commutes because we like this way of life. ` Tell me how this is not telling us how we will live. 1 thought we were tuming more towards environmentally sound things." . The same complaint is heard in places like Chatsworth and Sylmar. Don't pave over our horse � trails. ThaYs not what IZ would do, Reyes protests. But, neighbors demand, wouldn't you require new multifamily housing in our neighborhood? IYs coming anyway, Reyes invariably responds. LeYs channel it. But the horse communities are generally unimpressed. , lYs gone better in some neighborhoods, especially the ones that know what it is iike to be built out. The Venice Neighborhood Council signed on to inclusionary zoning. Silver Lake's council did too, with some suggestions and important observations. For example, if you want people to feel' invested in their neighborhoods, shouldn't you let people who buy submarket units sell fo� the full price if they stick around for 20 years or so? Let them build equity, like everyone else, and a stake in the community. But iYs not just affordable-housing skeptics in the Valley who aren't Reyes fans. Some of his most vocal Cypress Park neighbors are unhappy with him. , Art Pulido, for example, who has known Reyes and his family since chiidhood, thinks the - councilman has his:head in the clouds. "You know what we got from Ed Reyes?" Pulido asks. Supplying his own answer, he forms a - circle with his thumb and forefinger and holds it up to his eye. Zero. • http://www.la.weekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=58561 11/18/2004 Page l3 of 14 "ThaYs a powerful position. Why doesn't he hustle for us? Violence, drugs, dropouts — he � � doesn't want to deal with that. He wants to deal with the river. With development.° ° He scoffs at the notion that Reyes is Cypress Park all the way. Even as a child, Pulido says, Reyes was aloof. Went to Sacred Heart, and then Cathedral High School. Went to school, came straight home. . "When he was 13, 14 years old, his mom didn't allow him outside," Pulido claims. This March, Pulido says, he will be casting his vote for "anybody but Ed Reyes." , John Edwards, a relative newcomer to Cypress Park, comes from a different perspective. But he ends up in the same place. "He's obsessed with the L.A. River," says Edwards, who runs a computer leaming center. "Look what he's ignored in the process!° Edwards also notes that Reyes tends to lecture people on the city's long history of neglecting . the Latino Eastside and historicaily black South L.A. "So is he trying to make up for the past discrimination," Edwards asks, "or is he against white people? I personally think he's a racist." Reyes' own supporters and staffers bristle, or laugh, at the notion that Reyes is a racist. Still, they acknowledge that the councilman's vision includes-an environmentalism that's embraced by working-class Latinos, and that groups that traditionally steward the river and the trees are, well, not Latino. Anglo. Elitist? Ask the man himself, and he assumes a familiar stance. Eyes up, then closed, fleeting smile. "How can I say this?" he asks aloud. A pause. This time, there is no answer. While some of Reyes' City Council colleagues will glide to re-election this March -unopposed, Reyes drew seven challengers. None is considered � serious threat. But just over four years ago, Reyes, too, was considered a long shot. • , The difficulty Reyes sometimes has in articulating his vision is underscored by the very , different image presented by his chief ally on inclusionary zoning, and a host of other progressive measures, Councilman Eric Garcetti. Garcetti is everything Reyes is not — � charismatic, confident, at ease with a crowd, comfortabie with attention, smooth-tongued in both English and Spanish. Reyes, pressing his point on why developers should subsidize affordable-housing construction, often asks community groups, "How much is enough?" It is from the heart. And it usually dunks on the floor. ' ' Garcetti puts it differently. "We all have to sacrifice," he told a housing forum recently. "Communities have to give a little bit on density. Builders have to give a little bit on profits. Affordable-housing advocates have to give a little bit on their goals." There's something in there for everyone to hate. But Garcetti's delivery, as always, was http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=58561 11 /18/2004 Page 14 of 14 perfect, and he drew a warm round of applause. Why can't Reyes do that? But Garcetti says Reyes doesn't need to. He brings the vision, but . also much more. The guts. The guts to be unpopular, for a program he fervently believes is ° right. "Ed Reyes is one of the mosYcourageous people I have ever met," Garcetti says. "This is a • very hard thing to do. But he will keep fighting for it. And we're lucky because of that." µ' {. ! ' http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=58561 11/18/2004