JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
ITEM NO. 2
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2020-00248
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2021-00536
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2021-00336
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06097
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19141
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Location: This property is located on north side of
Broadway, approximately 275 feet east of Euclid Street
(1661-1673 West Broadway).
Request: The applicant requests approval of the
following zoning entitlements:
1) A General Plan amendment to amend the land
use designation from Office – Low to Mid
Density Residential;
2) A zoning reclassification from the C-G (General
Commercial) zone to the RM-3.5 (Multiple-
Family Residential) zone;
3) A conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for the
construction of a 34-unit, attached single-family
residential project with modified development
standards;
4) A tentative tract map to permit a 1-lot, 34 unit
subdivision for condominium purposes; and
5) A development agreement to permit a voluntary
financial contribution to support the City’s
affordable housing programs.
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is the appropriate environmental
documentation for this request under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
MOTION: White/Perez
Approved
continuance to a
date certain of
August 1, 2022.
VOTE: 5-2
Chairperson Meeks
and Commissioners
Vadodaria, White,
Perez and Heywood
voted yes.
Commissioners Kring
and Mouawad voted
no.
Note: This item
was reconsidered
at the end of the
agenda
.
Project Planner:
Nick Taylor
[email protected]
Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated July 6, 2022, and a visual presentation. The request is for a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Reclassification, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, and development agreement to construct a 34- unit single-family townhome project with modified development standards.
JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
This property is located on the north side of Broadway, just east of Euclid Street. It is currently developed with multi-tenant office buildings. Surrounding uses surround include multiple-family residential to the north, and across Broadway to the south. There are community and religious assembly uses to the east and west, as well as commercial uses to the west. This 1.5-acre property is located in the General Commercial zone. The General Plan designates it for Office- Low land uses.
The applicant proposes to construct 34 townhomes using the RM-3.5 zone development standards. The units would be in five three-story buildings, consisting of two to four bedroom units and each unit would have a two-car garage; the units would be between roughly 1,000 and 1,600 square feet. Vehicle access would be provided from a driveway on Broadway.
The project would include a contemporary design and would incorporate a mix of building materials in mix of whites, greys, blues, with yellows in different schemes, with stucco, stone veneer, metal awnings, and fiber cement sidings, and would include stucco with stone veneer accents. Townhomes with second-story decks would have contrasting metal railings. The project architecture and design would also incorporate façade variations to provide further articulation.
The project would be subject to the “RM-3.5” zoning requirements. In this zone, development standards, including setback and height requirements, may be modified as part of a conditional use permit when it is determined that the modifications achieve a high quality project design, privacy, livability, and compatibility with surrounding uses. The applicant is requesting a 20.6- foot minimum building-to-building setback where a 40-foot separation between three-story buildings would be required. The reduced building-to-building setback is consistent with modifications granted to similar projects in the past. The three-story primary building elevations would be separated by attractive landscaped paseos or common area landscape, or would provide for drive aisles with access to garages, and would have adequate separation to ensure a quality living environment. The elevations would also be enhanced and articulated.
The applicant requests to modify the interior setback along the east and north property lines adjacent to the religious assembly use, and carports for the apartments. The Code identifies structural setback requirements based on building height and building wall categories. Primary building walls contain entrances, exits, or windows opening into main living areas. Secondary building walls, which contain windows opening into bathrooms, closets, stairwells etc.
Buildings are proposed with three-story primary walls setback a minimum of 15 feet where the Code requires 20 feet. Though defined as a primary wall because it would include windows for bedrooms and other living spaces, the project design would include only clerestory windows on these elevations for the entries, great rooms, and bedrooms. A clerestory window (or sometimes called clearstory) are windows that are set high on the wall, above eye level. Since the clerestory windows would limit visibility from these areas and these buildings would be adjacent to carports and a religious assembly use, staff believes the reduced setback would provide good design that is compatible with surrounding development and meets the intent of the interior setback requirement.
There is a modification needed along the interior setback on the west property line. The Code requires a five-foot setback and the project would provide a zero landscape setback in some areas to accommodate existing power poles along the property line. The project would include the required six-foot tall property line wall separating the project from the adjacent commercial, JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
community, and religious assembly uses. While a five-foot landscape setback would be provided where there are no power poles, there would be five-foot projections into the setback to accommodate the masonry wall providing required clearance around the pole for maintenance.
Staff believes the reduced setback would provide a design that is compatible with the adjacent uses with the required six-foot masonry wall allowing necessary access for maintenance of the poles. The applicant has also proposed climbing vines on the interior side of the wall pop outs for screening where there is room to accommodate planting.
The applicant is requesting a 10-foot setback from ground floor patios where 12-feet is required.
The two-foot encroachment into the required setback for patios would allow larger private patios and create a private space separating the units from the public sidewalk along Broadway, while still maintaining pedestrian connectivity with walkways and gates leading to the private patios.
Staff believes this design would add to the livability and privacy of the proposed residences.
There is a General Plan Amendment associated with the project in order to redesignate the property from Office-Low to Mid Density Residential land uses. The Land Use Element describes the Mid Density Residential as providing for the development of a wide range of residential uses, including detached, small-lot single-family homes, attached single-family homes, patio homes, zero lot line homes, duplexes, townhouses, and mobile home parks. The permitted density range is from zero to 27 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project would have a density of 21.9 units per acre. Staff believes that the requested Mid Density designation would be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses because the proposed amendment would maintain internal consistency of the General Plan by furthering the Goals identified in the staff report. Further, the project would not be detrimental to public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City because the amendment would result in residential development opportunities that would be compatible with the existing residential land uses within the immediate vicinity of the project, as well as commercial, community and religious assembly uses. The property is also physically suitable to accommodate the proposed amendment and residential development including access, physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility with surrounding uses.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested General Plan amendment.
A total of almost 9,500 square feet of recreational area is proposed, which is 130 square feet more than what is required. Recreational amenities would include a social gathering area with accent paving and specimen trees, there would also be landscaped paseos with decorative pottery planters. Private areas would include decks and ground floor patios at some of the units.
A tentative tract map is proposed to create a 1-lot condominium subdivision for the 34 “airspace” condominium units. All common areas, including driveways, recreational areas, paseos, and sidewalks would be owned and maintained by the homeowner’s association. The proposed density of 21.9 dwelling units per acre is permitted under the proposed Mid Density land use designation. In addition, the project does not conflict with any easements acquired by the public and complies with all subdivision requirements.
An Initial Study in support of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project and to identify necessary mitigation pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The IS/MND was circulated to public agencies and interested parties. The City received one comment letter that JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
is included as an attachment to the report. The comment did not require recirculation of the MND; however, staff prepared a response that is also attached.
The applicant has proposed a development agreement in conjunction with this request. The proposed agreement provides the applicant with the certainty desired to develop the project and in return, the applicant would provide a voluntary contribution of $34,000 to assist the City’s affordable housing programs and projects.
Staff believes that the proposed development agreement meets the requirements to recommend an approval of such agreement, since it is consistent with the proposed General Plan amendment and compatible with the surrounding uses and regulations of the RM-3.5 zone.
In addition, the proposed agreement would serve to provide surety for the developer and includes benefits to the City previously referenced.
With regard to community outreach, the applicant hosted a virtual meeting in July 2021. They indicated they sent out 673 notices and approximately 5 people attended. The applicant provided a summary of the meeting included with the staff report; and indicated most attendees were existing tenants of the commercial buildings interested in the future development of the site.
Staff believes that the project is designed in a manner that will provide a quality living environment for future residents, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. It will meet goals of the General Plan to continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities and to address the City’s diverse housing needs. Staff recommends approval of the requested entitlements and is here for any questions, along with other City staff members, the environmental consultant, and the applicant.
Chairperson Meeks opened the public hearing.
Commissioner White asked staff to confirm the Affordable Housing Unit contribution of $1,000 per unit. Senior Planner Taylor responded affirmatively. Commissioner White stated this does not go a long way to building affordable housing. He stated the City recently offered the Angels $250,000 per unit for affordable housing, and believed that $34,000 per unit seems low. Usually the density bonuses and setbacks are used as an incentive for developers to provide affordability in the project. The last project he looked at had 10% set aside. He requested clarity on the cost differences.
Senior Planner Taylor responded stating the City Council has a policy that obligates residential developers to meet with housing staff to discuss the affordable options; however, there is not an obligation for them to provide affordable units or to provide a financial contribution. The applicant has met their obligations by providing a voluntary contribution through the Development Agreement for $1,000 per unit.
Commissioner White responded that there is no policy obligation to provide setback bonuses.
Senior Planner Taylor responded that the Developer is seeking setback modifications through a Conditional Use Permit.
Chairperson Meeks invited the applicant to make a statement.
JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Kim Prijatel, Senior Vice President of Development for City Ventures, made an introduction to the project. She restated that a virtual community meeting was held; however, no one from the community attended. As with all City Ventures projects, these will be solar, all electric homes with all the typical “green” elements included in all of their projects. These include drought- tolerant landscaping, water-efficient irrigation, plumbing fixtures, tank-less water heaters, low-e windows, and other green elements. Solar panels are included with the price of the home, each owner will have their own panels on their roof. It comes with the price of the home, there are no ongoing payments or lease, so from day one they will experience savings from no gas and very little electric use.
Ms. Prijatel stated regarding the affordable contribution, they were not aware of it until they were in escrow to purchase the property because the City of Anaheim does not have a requirement for affordable housing. Staff informed them that contributions could be made, and this is what they decided to do. City Ventures does build affordable housing, approximately 50% or fewer have an affordable component. In this case, they are offering a contribution.
Commissioner White asked the applicant if they would have built affordable housing as they have in the past if the City of Anaheim required it. Ms. Prijatel stated that if they knew from the beginning of the project that affordable housing is a requirement, they could work with the land- seller and let them know it is a City requirement. Since home prices will be restricted, that would be a component of the sale. However, they did not know if it was a requirement at the time, and if it were they would have been more than happy to contribute. Commissioner White concluded stating he does not fault the applicant at all and that it should be a requirement.
Commissioner Perez asked to clarify if all the homes have private space. Ms. Prijatel confirmed this is correct. Commissioner Perez then asked for the methodology for roof decks on only a few homes, however Ms. Prijatel confirmed there are no roof decks. He then stated that $34,000 does not even buy a new car, therefore would the applicant be amenable to at least a 5% contribution. Ms. Prijatel responded stating that they are not able to do that, and without having known about this requirement, the $34,000 is what they can manage. The project size is not very big, so this is what they can do.
Commissioner Perez asked Ms. Prijatel if they would entertain moving for a continuance and allow the applicant to meet with their partners to decide whether 5% is amenable. Ms. Prijatel responded that is not something they were told was a requirement for the development, so it would be a difficult thing on a project of this size.
Chairperson Meeks raised concerns about the reduction of building setbacks form the required 40 feet to 20 feet and asked for the justification to do this.
Ms. Prijatel responded stating that the courtyard size is typical for this type of development.
They did review window placement and other things to ensure privacy unit to unit, they make sure windows do not line up. This building separation does enable everyone to have a patio, and upper level deck, a paseo with landscaping through the center, and provides adequate space between the buildings. Chairperson Meeks thanked the applicant and stated she will discuss further with staff.
Chairperson Meeks closed the public hearing.
JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Senior Planner Taylor responded that the modification would achieve a high-quality project design, privacy, livability and compatibility with surrounding uses. He stated the 20 feet is the “pinch point”, and there is some variation across the elevation.
Senior Planner Taylor displayed the elevation slide showing the variations. In the first one shown, it is wider than 20 feet accommodating the drive aisle, approximately 28 feet. With respect to other projects, the Commission has granted as narrow as 15 feet in some instances.
In the past 6 ½ years at the City, he could not recall a project that has not needed this building- to-building modification in some capacity. In fact, 2-3 years ago, staff presented a code amendment to the Commission to consider reducing it; however, the Commission decided not to act on it. However, it was something that needed addressing in the code, so that there is not a need to ask for modification at every multi-family townhome development. Regarding the project in question, if there is additional information the Commission needs from staff then that is something they can try to provide.
Chairperson Meeks asked if there was any recollection of the justification used to propose the reduced setback. She also asked if light, privacy and these issues investigated. Senior Planner Taylor responded that a technical study or impact report was not required, but if the Commission would like more information, they can look into providing this.
Chairperson Meeks stated her position is that if the setback requirement is consistently not enforced then the code should be changed, with examples and evidence of why this should be the standard rather than waiving it all the time.
Commissioner White asked Senior Planner Taylor if this project had been 10% affordable housing, would law have allowed the setbacks. Senior Planner Taylor responded stating that he is unable to answer for certain; however the housing incentives ordinance is complex and is different based on the number of affordable units and depth of affordability. There are setback incentives that are offered through the incentives ordinance.
Commissioner Perez raised a discussion regarding the applicant not working well with the City regarding the affordable housing incentive. He stated it seems as if the City is jumping through hurdles to approve the project. He stated he might vote no on the project based on the way in which approval is being obtained.
Commissioner Heywood stated that while he shares the concerns of Commissioners White and Perez regarding the affordable housing element, it is not appropriate for the Commission to be asking for more money at this point in the project. The developer acquired the property based on certain financials that, at that time, did not require them to provide anything with respect to affordable housing. He stated the problems are within the policy, it is a weak policy with no teeth and the City Council needs to change it.
Commissioner Kring stated she agrees with Commissioner Heywood, the developer acted under the laws in place at the time. It is unfair of the Commission to ask for more affordable housing in the project without knowing the costs or finances of the property. She stated that adding affordable housing units causes financial loss. This is due to density bonuses and other requirements. Therefore, it is unfair at this late stage to have the applicant add affordability, and then discuss density and less parking, etc.
JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Kring made a motion to approve the project as is, and stated the developer acted in good faith at the time. The motion failed.
Commissioner Perez stated that adding 5% affordable housing on this project would be 1.5 units, and would not cause the project to go financially negative. Even if there were mitigating factors during construction that caused delays, that still would not cause the project to go under.
He believed the Commission was being asked to approve too much.
Commissioner Kring stated that it is not verifiable that adding 1.5 housing units would not have a financial impact. She noted that construction costs are escalating, and the Commission has no idea what costs currently are. Commissioner Kring stated that if developers come to the Commission with a great plan and city staff have recommended approval, then the Commission should consider approval if the project meets Code.
Commissioner Perez clarified that by simple math it is very clear the project would not go negative. It may affect the project, but it would not go negative. Commissioner White agreed with Commissioner Perez and stated that there is plenty of financial room due to rising housing prices.
Chairperson Meeks asked the applicant if they would like to entertain a continuance before voting.
Ms. Prijatel responded that as much as 5% and 1.5 units do not sound like a lot, it rounds up to two units and the gap between a moderate unit and a for-sale unit is a couple hundred thousand dollars. Therefore, this would be half of a million dollars to absorb into a 34-unit project. Where there may be some revenue increases over the last few years, there have also been extraordinary cost increases. The property was purchased two years ago and was underwritten a certain way. She believed that an increase of half a million dollars in a 34-unit project is something they cannot do.
Chairperson Meeks restated her offer to allow the applicant a continuance to review the affordable housing element before voting begins. Ms. Prijatel agreed to a continuance.
Niki Wetzel, Deputy Director, stated that staff would recommend adjourning to August 1, 2022.
Commissioner White motioned to continue this item to the August 1, 2022 with the public hearing closed, seconded by Commissioner Perez. Motion carried 5-2 (Commissioner’s Kring and Mouawad voting no).
Chairperson Meeks encouraged the applicant to meet with City staff and someone from Affordable Housing staff to discuss options.
OPPOSITION: None
DISCUSSION TIME: 38 minutes (6:55 to 7:33 p.m.)
JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
ITEM NO. 2 (Reconsideration)
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2020-00248
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2021-00536
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2021-00336
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06097
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19141
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Location: This property is located on north side of
Broadway, approximately 275 feet east of Euclid
Street (1661-1673 West Broadway).
Request: The applicant requests approval of the
following zoning entitlements:
1) A General Plan amendment to amend the
land use designation from Office – Low to
Mid Density Residential;
2) A zoning reclassification from the C-G
(General Commercial) zone to the RM-3.5
(Multiple-Family Residential) zone;
3) A conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for
the construction of a 34-unit, attached
single-family residential project with modified
development standards;
4) A tentative tract map to permit a 1-lot, 34
unit subdivision for condominium purposes;
and
5) A development agreement to permit a
voluntary financial contribution to support the
City’s affordable housing programs.
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether a Mitigated
Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental
documentation for this request under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Resolution No. PC2022-
070
Resolution No. PC2022-
071
MOTION: Kring/Perez
Approved,
recommended City
Council Approval
VOTE: 6-1
Chairperson Meeks and
Commissioners Vadodaria,
Kring, White, Heywood and
Mouawad voted yes.
Commissioner Perez voted
no.
Project Planner:
Nick Taylor
[email protected]
Chairperson Meeks reopened Public Comments at the end of the agenda, and applicant Kim Prijatel stated that after speaking with the City Ventures team, they are unable to wait until August 1, 2022. She stated that they would not be able to offer any more than they are offering JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
to assist the City’s affordable housing programs and projects. She asked to vote on the project tonight.
Chairperson Meeks asked the City Attorney to weigh in on the procedure for this, as an action has already been taken. Commissioner White said he would be happy to rescind his motion.
City Attorney Leonie reminded the Commission that under the procedural rules of order, there is an option to reconsider the action. The window to do that is tonight or tomorrow, so if there is a desire to reconsider the earlier action there must be a motion that must be seconded, and the motion must be made by a member of the majority of the decision to continue. This would be either Commissioner White, Vadodaria, Meeks, Perez, or Heywood.
Commissioner White motioned for a reconsideration of the action, seconded by Commissioner Perez. Motion carried 7-0.
Commissioner Kring motioned to approve the project, seconded by Commissioner Perez.
Motion carried 6-1 (Commissioner Perez voting no).
Deputy Director Wetzel reminded the Commission that this application will be going to the City Council given the Development Agreement and General Plan Amendment for further consideration.
OPPOSITION: None
DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (8:15 to 8:18 p.m.)