Planning Commission agrees to reconsider controversial housing project

Dalwood Avenue, looking north from the 9000 block toward the former Honda World service center site, where a controversial 145-unit townhome development is proposed. The Planning Commission voted Wednesday to reconsider its earlier denial of the project. (Photo by Eric Pierce)

DOWNEY — A controversial proposal to build 145 townhomes on the former Honda World service center property will return to the Downey Planning Commission next month after commissioners voted Wednesday to reconsider their earlier rejection of the project amid new legal considerations and threats of litigation from the developer.

The commission voted 3-0 to select the second of two options presented by city staff, reopening consideration of the proposed development at 11136 Dollison Drive and continuing the matter to a new public hearing Sept. 16.

Commissioners Carrie Uva, Elias Saikaly and Gil Legaspi voted in favor of reconsideration. Commissioner Hector Lujan was absent, while Commissioner Mario Guerra recused himself from the discussion.

The action does not approve the project. Instead, it effectively sets aside the commission’s previous path toward formally denying the proposal and allows commissioners to deliberate on it again at a newly noticed public hearing.

Uva said the commission was being asked to choose between two options after receiving additional information, including legal considerations. City staff similarly said the reconsideration option was available because of additional legal information received following the commission’s July meeting.

Those legal considerations came against the backdrop of threatened litigation from Honda World and the developer following the commission’s unanimous rejection of the project last month. Guerra said in a written statement that commissioners had received “numerous litigation threats” after the July 15 vote.

The project, submitted by Meritage Homes, calls for 145 three-story townhomes on 6.15 acres formerly occupied by the Honda World service center. The development would contain 130 market-rate units and 15 units designated for moderate-income households.

The proposal has generated opposition from nearby residents, particularly over its density, architectural design, traffic and proximity to existing single-family homes.

Plans call for 14 three-story buildings containing two-, three- and four-bedroom townhomes. The project would have a density of 26.8 units per acre, with buildings reaching as high as 37 feet, 6 inches.

Some of the proposed buildings would sit considerably closer to neighboring homes than normally required. City standards call for a 46-foot rear setback for a three-story building adjoining an R-1 residential property, while the proposed western setback ranges from approximately 9 to 55 feet. The developer has requested waivers from some development standards, including building height and setbacks.

The Planning Commission initially rejected the project unanimously, 5-0, on July 15 after a public hearing that stretched roughly six and a half hours.

Commissioners cited traffic and safety concerns, including issues involving Dollison Drive, Crossdale Avenue and Cecilia Street. Guerra made the motion to deny the project, which was seconded by Uva.

The commission had been scheduled Wednesday to consider a formal resolution memorializing that denial. Instead, three commissioners chose the alternative presented by staff: reconsider the entire application and bring it back for another hearing.

Before Wednesday’s meeting, Guerra submitted a statement explaining why he would not participate in the reconsideration vote.

Guerra said he made the decision after the litigation threats and after the applicant suggested he was biased against the project.

He rejected that characterization, saying his concerns emerged only after listening to hours of testimony and reviewing the proposal during the July hearing.

“I did not believe this was a good enough project as presented,” Guerra said in his statement. “I said that it did not fit the character or ‘flavor’ of the neighborhood, that it was not creative, and that the applicant needed to do better.”

Guerra said commissioners repeatedly asked the developer whether changes could be made to address concerns raised during the hearing but did not see meaningful revisions.

“I felt that the voices of the residents in that neighborhood were not being adequately heard,” he said.

Guerra also addressed comments he made on social media after the July vote, which he said were subsequently cited as evidence that he was biased. He maintained the comments simply repeated positions he had already expressed publicly from the dais before voting against the project.

Nevertheless, Guerra said he stepped aside to prevent the dispute over his participation from overshadowing the commission’s consideration of the development.

“I do so because I believe the integrity of the Planning Commission and the public process is more important than my individual vote,” Guerra said.

He remained sharply critical of the project and the applicant’s response to the commission’s concerns.

Guerra said Downey needs additional housing but argued that the need for housing does not mean every proposed development should automatically be considered appropriate.

“We need housing that is thoughtfully designed, appropriate for its surroundings, and respectful of the existing neighborhood,” he said. “A proposal that places three-story buildings approximately nine feet from someone’s backyard, combined with the potential traffic impacts in this area, deserves serious consideration and a better solution.”

Guerra said he hoped the applicant would use the additional time to reconsider aspects of the development.

“Listen to the residents. Listen to the community,” he said. “Take the concerns that were raised seriously and come back with a project that the neighborhood can be proud of.”

The Sept. 16 hearing will be re-noticed in accordance with state law and the Downey Municipal Code. Commissioners will then have another opportunity to consider the site plan review, density bonus and tentative tract map for the development.